S.K. Mal Lodha, J.
1. Against the order dated December 19, 1977, the appellant, who was petitioner before the learned Single Judge, has filed this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitioner appellant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The material facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are these: The petitioner was appointed as a Nakedar on January 22, 1948. His services were ordered to be transferred to the Irrigation Department, where he continued to serve for sometime. He resigned from his post on March 3, 1958. He again applied for appointment and on December 26, 1958, he was appointed as a Patwari in the Revenue Department of the State. The petitioner appellant requested the State Govt. to condone the interruption in the service from March 4, 1958 to December 25, 1958 under Rule 212 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (which will here in after referred to as 'the Rules'). The State Government by its order dated July 3, 1967, ordered for condonation of interruption and an entry in respect of the condonation of break in the service of the petitioner was made in his service book. The petitioner, by order Ex. 4 dated March 16, 1973, passed by the Collector (L.R.), Bikaner, was compulsory retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rules. It was ordered that three months' pay and allowances in view of three months previous notice be paid to him and a bank draft of the amount of Rs. 843.00 in respect of the three months' pay and allowance in lieu of three month's previous notice was enclosed. The petitioner-appellant filed the writ petition on May 29, 1973, praying, inter alia, that the order Anx. 4 dated May 16, 1973 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents (State of Rajasthan and the Collector (L.R.), Bikaner), may be restrained from retiring him in pursuance of the impugned order.
3. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated December 19, 1977, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has rightly been retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rules as he has qualifying service for 25 years, as required by Rule 244(2) of the Rules. In this view of the matter, he dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal as aforesaid.
4. We have heard Mr. M.L. Shrimalee for the appellant and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, Additional Government Advocate.
5. The only contention raised by Mr. M.L. Shrimalee is that the interruption in service from March 4, 1958 to December 25, 1958, which was condoned at the request of the petitioner-appellant under Rule 212 of the Rules, cannot be included in the period for qualifying service Under Rule 244(2) of the Rules. This is stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Govt. Advocate. He has supported the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in this regard.
6. Chaptar XVIII of the Rules deals with 'Conditions of Qualifying Service.' Section 1 of Chapter XVIII, deals with definition of 'Qualifying Service'. We are concerned with Rule 177(b), which lays down that if a special rule or contract does not provide otherwise, the service of every Government servant begins when he takes charge of the office to which he is first appointed. There is no dispute that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as Nakedar in the Excise and Customs Department on January 22, 1948. The service of the petitioner-appellant had, thus, begun when he took charge as a Nakedar on January 22, 1948. Under the head 'Conditions of qualification' Rule 179 occurs, which says that the service of officer does not qualify for pension unless it confirms to the three conditions mentioned therein. Rule 212 of the Rules reads as under:
212. Upon such conditions as it may think in each case to impose the Government may condone interruption in service of a Government servant.
According to this rule, the power of condonation carries with it the power of reviving service rendered prior to interruption but forfeited under Rule 208(e) Rule 213 deals with condonation of deficiency, and according to it, a competent authority may condone a deficiency net exceeding 12 months in the qualifying service of a low paid employee proceeding on invalid or compensation pension. It may be noted that Rule 213 is for condoning deficiency when the government servant is proceeding on invalid or compensation pension.
7. Section V of Chapter XX relates to 'Retiring Pension' Rule 243 is. With respect to the grant of Retiring Pension, who retires after attaining the superannuation age or is retired under Rule 244.
8. The order against the petitioner-appellant has been passed under Rule 244(2) which provides that a government servant may be compulsorily retired on the date, he completes 25 years' qualifying service, or attains the age of 55 years. There are certain other conditions with which we are not concerned. If the period intervening March 4, 1958 to December 25, 1958 is not excluded, there is no controversy that the order Anx. 4 dated May, 16, 1973 is valid, for, the petitioner was appointed on January 22, 1984 and until the passing of the order, he had completed 25 years' qualifying service. Mr. M.L. Shrimalee, learned Counsel for the appellant, urges that the condonation of service under Rule 212 of the Rules at his request was limited to the purpose of payment of pension to the petitioner-appellant, but the break in service from March 4, 1958 to December 25, 1958, though condoned, cannot be included for the purpose of computing 25 years' qualifying service.
9. A reading of Rule 212 of the Rules abundantly makes it clear that the conditions envisaged under Rule 212 is without any restriction or limitation. The Government has been empowered to condone the interruption in service and while doing so, it may impose certain conditions, which it may think fit to impose. Rule 212 is not limited only for the purpose of pension. It applies for the purpose of pension as well as for compulsory retirement. According to us, Rule 212 will govern both the aforesaid types of cases. As stated above, the petitioner-appellant was appointed as Nakedar on January 22, 1948. He resigned on March 3, 1956. He was appointed as Patwari from December 26, 1958. At his request, the intervening period of from March 4, 1958, the date when he resigned, and December 25, 1958, preceding the date of his appointment was condoned. This means that there was no break in service. The continuity in service was maintained. In other words, his services continued from Jan. 22, 1956 until the date of compulsory retirement inclusive of the period from March 4, 1958 to December 25, 1958,
10. Mr. M.L. Shrimalee, learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Bahadur Singh v. State of Raj. 1981(2) SLR 582, wherein Rule 244(2) relating to qualifying service regarding compulsory retirement was concerned. We have read the decision and have no hesitation in saying that it is not applicable to the case on hand. It may be stated that the appointment of the petitioner-appellant as Patwari by means of the order dated 28, 1958 was, of course, a fresh appointment, but when the petitioner prayed for condonation of service from March 4, 1958 to December 26, 1958, then despite the fact that the petitioner was freshly appointed as Patwari, there was continuity in service from the date of his initial appointment, for, his service had begun under Rule 177(b) when he was first appointed in the State Services and took charge of the post of Nakedar.
11. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that on account of condonation of the interruption in service from March 4, 1958, there was continuity in service of the petitioner and, therefore, when the order Ex. 4 dated March 16, 1973 was passed, he has completed 25 years qualifying service. We reject the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant.
12. As the only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant has not been accepted, the appeal must be dismissed.
13. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs.