Fresh appointment following termination does not constitute reinstatement for counting past service as qualifying service.

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable (Excise) on June 6, 1985

His services were terminated on October 15, 1987

Following a representation, the petitioner was appointed afresh by an order dated March 30, 1994 (formally issued on April 6, 1994)

Upon superannuation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to count the intervening period (October 21, 1987, to April 5, 1994) as qualifying service for pensionary benefits

The petitioner also challenged the original 1987 termination order for the first time through an amendment to this petition, approximately 29 years after the event

1. Whether the petitioner’s appointment in 1994 constitutes "reinstatement" or a "fresh appointment," and whether he is entitled to count his past service for pensionary purposes under Rule 25 of the M.P. (Civil Services) Pension Rules, 1976

2. Whether the challenge to the termination order dated October 15, 1987, is maintainable after a delay of 29 years

Rule 25 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976

Rule 25(1) stipulates that a Government servant who is dismissed, removed, or compulsorily retired but is subsequently reinstated is entitled to count past service.

Rule 25(2) further provides that periods of interruption due to such dismissal or removal shall count as qualifying service specifically upon reinstatement

The court observed that the petitioner failed to challenge the 1987 termination order for nearly three decades, rendering the belated challenge in the present petition unsustainable

Regarding the nature of the 1994 service entry, the court noted that the appointment order dated April 6, 1994, explicitly used the term "appointment" and made no mention of "reinstatement"

Furthermore, the petitioner was placed on a specific pay scale (950-1530) as a fresh entrant, and his previous annual increments were not considered or carried forward

The court highlighted that the petitioner had accepted this fresh appointment without challenging its terms at that time

Since Rule 25 of the 1976 Rules applies strictly to cases of "reinstatement" and not to "fresh appointments," the court reasoned that the petitioner could not legally claim the benefit of counting his past service or the intervening period as qualifying service

The court concluded that because the petitioner was appointed afresh in 1994 and not reinstated, his previous services from 1985 to 1987 and the subsequent period of interruption cannot be counted as qualifying service under Rule 25 of the M.P. (Civil Services) Pension Rules, 1976