Prior State service counts for pay protection and pensionary benefits upon appointment to Chandigarh Administration.

The applicant joined the Punjab Government as a Clerk in the District and Sessions Judge’s office, Hoshiarpur, in June 2017.

After applying through proper channel, he was selected for a Clerk post with the Chandigarh Administration and joined on 30 September 2021.

His request to protect his pay by taking account of his Punjab Government service was rejected on 31 May 2022, principally by reference to the probation clause in his appointment terms.

He challenged that rejection under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking recognition of his prior service and pay protection.

The respondents opposed the claim, arguing, among other things, that Chandigarh Administration employees were governed by Punjab service conditions when the applicant joined and that service with another State Government could not be counted.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to pay protection on joining the Chandigarh Administration, taking account of his regular service with the Punjab Government.

2. Whether the applicant’s previous Punjab Government service was to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The parties referred to Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Government of India instructions and Office Memoranda on pay protection, the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2022, and related Chandigarh Administration notifications.

The Tribunal’s operative basis, however, was its decision dated 29 November 2024 in OA No. 1311/2017 and batch, which held the applicants there entitled to pay protection in their new organisation and to have their previous KVS service counted for pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal recorded the applicant’s reliance on the 2024 decision and noted that the respondents had not produced a contrary decision.

It then disposed of the application “in the same terms” as that decision, extending its stated relief to the applicant’s Punjab Government service.

The order contains no separate analysis of the respondents’ arguments about the applicable service rules or the applicant’s probation clause.

It directed that the necessary action be completed within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

There was no order as to costs, and the pending miscellaneous application was disposed of accordingly.