IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11932 of 1998 Date of decision: January 7, 2009 Onkar Nath & others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Sharma, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate. Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Pradip Bhandari, Advo for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? AJAY TEWARI, J. This order shall dispose of following petitions No.11932 of 1998, 1826 & 1917 of 2000, 1341 & 16534 of 2001 4785, 5217 & 6288 of 2003, 1005, 5957, 5210 & 16421 of 2004 and 15508 & 17121 of 2005 as the controversy involved in all the petitions is similar. However, the facts are being taken from C.W.P. No.11932 of 1998. This matter has come before this Court on remand from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the remand order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: CWP No.11932 of 1998 -2- “We request the High Court to decide the issue afresh keeping in view the aforesaid decisions of this Court and other material and decide whether the Full Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kesar Chand (supra) on which the decision in the case of Banta Ram (supra) is based and the impugned judgments and orders were passed is still good law. It will be open for all the parties to file any further additional material if they so desire before the High Court. Accordingly, all these appeals are allowed, the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court are set aside and all these matters are remitted back to the High Court for deciding the issue afresh.” Learned counsel for parties are agreed that in a case where a larger bench has taken a particular view and there is a contradictory decision of the Supreme Court on the same point, it may be open to a Single Judge to say to hold that larger Bench decision was not good law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case, however, I find that there is no direct judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which may, on all fours, give rise to the inescapable conclusion that the Full Bench decision is no longer good law. Even the judgments relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the remand order itself pertain to ad hoc service. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to my notice a Division Bench decision of this Court in Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Workers Union vs. State of Punjab & others in CWP No.9192 of 2005 decided on 20.12.2007 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held as follows: CWP No.11932 of 1998 -3- “Concept of work charge service has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Purushottam and others, AIR 1996 SC 2228 wherein, after referring to earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh and others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1980 SC 115, it has been held that work charge establishment is an establishment of which expenses including wages and allowances of the staff are chargeable to 'works'. Employees are temporary employees for execution of specified work. Their services come to an end on completion of the work and their services cannot be taken into account for seniority and regular establishment. In State of Punjab and others vs. Jit Singh, AIR 1997 SC 29, it was observed that work charge employee was not a government servant. In State of Manipur vs. Thingujam Brojen Meetei, AIR 1996 SC 2124, it was held that 'die in harness' scheme could not be applied to a work charge employee. In State of Gujarat and another vs. Karshanbhai K. Rabari and others, 2006(6) SCC 21, it was held that work charge employees could not be treated at par with regular employees. In view of above reasons, we are of the view that work charge service could not be counted as regular service for the purpose of proficiency step up.” In this judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench did not consider the correctness or otherwise of the view of the Full Bench but held as follows: “In Kesar Chand (supra) Full Bench of this Court was not concerned about issue of seniority but was only concerned about the issue of counting ad hoc service for pension. The said judgment is, thus, distinguishable.” CWP No.11932 of 1998 -4- Even before me learned counsel have not been able to dispute that the facts on the basis of which the decision of Kesar Chand was given do not arise in this case. Apart from this, it has been brought to my notice that the question of permissibility of counting work charge service for the purpose of grant of proficiency step up has been considered by three different Division Benches in CWP No.17246 of 2001 entitled as Sangram Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & others, CWP No.5738 of 1999 entitled as Kesar Singh vs. State of Punjab & others and CWP No.219 of 2003 entitled as Puran Singh & others vs State of Punjab & others. In all these cases the Division Bench held in favour of the employees and directed that work charge service should be counted for the purpose of proficiency step up. As a matter of fact against the judgment in Puran Singh's case SLP No.7798 of 2004 was dismissed. None of these decisions was considered in the case of Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Workers Union (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents have argued that in the remand order the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically directed this Court to consider the circulars on the above said issue and, in fact the only judgment in which these circulars have been considered is the above mentioned case of Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Workers Union. Learned counsel for the respondents have further argued that after the decision in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others reported as 2006(2) SCT 462 (supra), the entire CWP No.11932 of 1998 -5- gamut of the rights of irregularly/illegally appointed persons has to be reconsidered. Keeping in view the above facts, I hold that I am bound by the decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Workers Union vs. State of Punjab & others and consequently, dismiss this writ petition. No costs. January 7, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE