CWP No. 285 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 285 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: August 16, 2010 Harbhajan Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This order shall dispose of two petitions namely CWP No. 285 of 2009 entitled Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others and CWP No. 19307 of 2009 entitled Ram Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, as common questions of facts and law are involved. 2. For reference to record, CWP No. 285 of 2009 entitled Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others is being taken up. 3. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-11 dated 15.11.2007. 4. Perusal of order Annexure P-11 indicates that the petitioner filed representation dated 15.12.2005. The petitioner claims pension and other retiral benefits in view of the fact that the petitioner served the CWP No. 285 of 2009 2 respondent for 10 years on daily wage basis. Subsequently, services of the petitioner were regularized. In lieu of service rendered on daily wage basis, the petitioner claims pension and other retiral benefits, counting the said service as qualifying service. 5. Perusal of the impugned order itself indicates that the petitioner joined the respondent-department viz. Water Supply and Sanitation Department on daily wage basis (Muster Roll basis) w.e.f. 01.04.1995 and served in that capacity till 03.09.2002. Services of the petitioner were regularized on 01.10.2002. Vide the impugned order, the benefit prayed for by the petitioner has been denied on the ground that the issue is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition No. 19003 of 2004 entitled State of Punjab and others Vs. Amarjeet Ram and others, alongwith other connected matters. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that on identical grounds, Sadhu Singh and others, who served the same department as the petitioner, had approached this Court by way of filing CWP No. 18841 of 2007. The said petition has been allowed vide order dated 25.07.2008, placed on record as Annexure P-12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the appeal filed against the judgment rendered in Sadhu Singh's case (supra) has been dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute the fact that the judgment rendered by this Court in Sadhu Singh's case (supra) is on similar issue and would cover the case in favour of the petitioner. It has further not been disputed that the appeal filed by the State of Punjab against judgment rendered in Sadhu Singh's case (supra) has been dismissed. CWP No. 285 of 2009 3 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, contends that certain other appeals alongwith Special Leave Petition No. 19003 of 2004 entitled State of Punjab and others Vs. Amarjeet Ram were dismissed. It has further been contended that the order of dismissal passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India indicates that Rules framed by the State of Haryana were taken into account. The Rules allow the service spent by a daily wager to be counted towards qualifying service. It has been contended that the respondents would be filing a review application. 9. Be that as it may, as of date, judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sadhu Singh's case (supra) holds good. The appeal filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against this judgment [in Sadhu Singh's case (supra)], has been dismissed, as is the conceded position. In such circumstances, I have no reason to adjourn this case. 10. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of judgment dated 25.07.2008 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 18841 of 2007 entitled Sadhu Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others. 16.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?