IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 4291 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 29, 2008 PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GURMEJ SINGH .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RL Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. BR Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant- Punjab State Electricity Board against the judgment of reversal. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to service pension for the period of service with effect from 13.5.1985 to 31.12.1997 with consequential relief of arrears of pension with effect from 31.12.1997 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, till realization. The claim set up by the plaintiff was that he was appointed against a regular and permanent post, after selection. The plaintiff was treated as a regular employee after completion of four years of service. However, the defendants had been treating the services of the plaintiff as on work charge. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to service pension for RSA 4291 of 2003 2 the entire period of service rendered by him. The defendants opposed the claim with the contention that the plaintiff had been working as Work Charge Chowkidar since 16.6.1985. The plaintiff was, never treated as a regular employee and, therefore, the plaintiff had not served on a pensionable post. Since, the plaintiff was contributing to Provident Fund and an equal contribution was being remitted by the Board to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the case was sent to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide communication dated 11.2.1999. All the benefits to which the plaintiff was entitled in the capacity of his work on Work Charge basis, have been satisfied. The trial Court decreed the suit and held the plaintiff entitled to the service pension for the entire period of service with consequential relief, directing the defendants to pay the arrears with interest at the rate of 10% per annum till realization. The defendants went up in first appeal, which has been partly allowed in the following terms:- “10. In view of my above discussion, the appeal of the appellants is partly accepted with the modification that the appellants/defendants are directed to consider whether the respondent can be regularized on the basis of instructions issued from time to time by the Government of Punjab/board as he has put in more than 10 years of service and his case be considered within a period of one year from the date of this judgment and in case he is regularized then he will be entitled to pensionary benefits as permissible under rule 3.17 of the rules for treating his services qualifying for pension w.e.f. 13.5.1985 to 31.12.1997 along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date the pension was admissible till the actual payment. In case the pension is granted to the respondent then he will be liable to refund the amount on contributory fund, deposited by the appellants with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of the share of the appellants along with RSA 4291 of 2003 3 interest @ 10% p.a. from the date he received the payment and this amount will be adjusted towards the payment to be given to the respondent towards his pensionary benefits. .....” Learned counsel for the appellant-Board (defendants) has argued that the plaintiff was serving only on Work Charge basis and, therefore, under the service rules, is not entitled to pensionary relief. The Provident Fund and other claims of the plaintiff have already been satisfied. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has argued that the claim of the plaintiff was required to be considered by the appellant- defendants and, in case, he was entitled to be regularized, the pensionary benefits were required to be released in terms of Rule 3.17, treating his service period as qualifying service. Having considered the limited relief granted by the first appellate Court that the defendants-appellants were required to consider the claim of the plaintiff for regularization and, thereafter, decide the claim of pension, I do not find any scope for interference in this appeal. It is, however, directed that the decision would be taken by the appellants within 3 months of the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after hearing the respondent. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. April 29, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE