C.W.P.No.2322 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.2322 of 2008 Date of Decision : 18.2.2008 Makhan Singh .....Petitioner versus Bhakhra Beas Management Board and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 25.1.2007, Annexure P-6, whereby the representation of the petitioner claiming pension was rejected by the respondents. The petitioner joined with the Sutlej Beas Link on 2.2.1955 as work-charge employee. He was transferred to Bhakhra Beas Management Board in terms of the Award passed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 15.5.1974. C.W.P.No.2322 of 2008 2 The petitioner retired on 31.5.1993 on attaining the age of 60 years and sought pension earlier by filing a Civil Suit on 26.7.1996. The said Civil Suit was dismissed on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction, on 3.12.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the representation dated 5.12.2005 claiming pension, which has been declined by the respondents vide order dated 25.1.2007, Annexure P-6 which is impugned in the present writ petition. The order Annexure P-6 has been passed in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 28.9.2006. The representation of the petitioner has been declined on the ground that the petitioner continued to be a work-charge employee till the age of superannuation on 31.5.1993. His services were never regularized. In fact, the petitioner opted for extension in age as work-charge employee, upto the age of 60 years and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pension. It was also mentioned that the petitioner has taken all his retiral benefits which were available to a work-charge employee in the year 1993 itself. Once the services of the petitioner were not regularized, the petitioner cannot claim pension. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Appeal (Civil No.576 of 2008, titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Versus Surji Devi, decided on 22.1.2008. Apart from the said fact, the petitioner has opted for extension in age being work-charge employee. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around to claim pension as regular employee, moreso, when his services were never regularized. Moreover, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court after 14 years of withdrawing his C.W.P.No.2322 of 2008 3 benefits as work-charge employee. In view of the said fact, we do not find any error in the order dated 25.1.2007, Annexure P-6, passed by the respondents, which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition stands dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 18-02-2008 *mohinder