IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 153 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 7, 2011 State of Punjab and others …Appellants Versus Ram Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal by the State of Punjab is directed against the common judgment dated 16.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the claim of the writ petitioner- respondent for counting the daily wage service rendered by him, as qualifying service, for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits. Learned Single Judge has followed the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a member) in the case of Sadhu Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 18841 of 2007, decided on 25.7.2008) which was also a case of daily wage employees. They have put in more than 14 years of service as daily wage employees which was followed by regularisation. L.P.A. No. 153 of 2011 (O&M) 2. The argument which has now been raised, based on Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) was also raised by the appellant-State in Sadhu Singh’s case (supra) and the same was rejected in para 6 of the judgment, which reads thus:- “6. We have heard learned counsel at some length and have perused the paper book with their able assistance. The question regarding grant of pension to the work charged, daily wage and ad hoc employees is no longer subject of controversy. If such an employee has been regularised in service then his whole service rendered on work charged, daily wage and ad hoc basis would qualify for pension and other retiral benefits. In that regard reference is made to Rule 3.17-A of the Rules. It is appropriate to mention that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) PLR 223, has declared Rule 3.17 of the Rules as ultra vires of the Constitution, which was to the effect that only service rendered against a substantive permanent post would count as qualifying service. The observation made by the Full Bench read as under:- “Once the services of a work charged employee have been regularised, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the protection of equal laws for all persons 2 L.P.A. No. 153 of 2011 (O&M) similarly situated. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation of equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the State Government has to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work charged establishment before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who started as work charged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work charged employees have been regularised, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for these reasons the provisions of rule (ii) of rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 3. The Division Bench also noticed Rule 3.17-A of the Rules and has held that the principles incorporated in Rule 3.17-A are based on the dicta laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the 3 L.P.A. No. 153 of 2011 (O&M) case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) PLR 223. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition with 12% interest (P-2). 4. Having heard learned State counsel we are of the view that the matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Sadhu Singh’s case (supra) and the learned Single Judge did not commit any error of law by following that view. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) February 7, 2011 JUDGE PKapoor 4