CWP No.12646 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.12646 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.08.2010 **** Pritam Lal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG Punjab Mr. RD Bawa, Advocate for respondent No.3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner who initially joined as a Jeep Driver in the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage, Division No.2, Amritsar, was later on transferred to Municipal Corporation, Amritsar where he was absorbed w.e.f. 01.01.1981 as Assistant Tubewell Driver. (2). As per the reply/affidavit filed by respondent No.3-Corporation, the petitioner was appointed w.e.f. 01.01.1981 on work-charged basis and his services were later on regularized w.e.f. 5th CWP No.12646 of 2009.doc - 2 – February, 1991. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2002. Since the petitioner was not paid pension and other retiral benefits on the basis of his entire length of service, he made a representation to the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar which has been turned down vide order dated 31.05.2007/01.06.2007 (Annexure P2) on the plea that only the ‘regular service’ rendered w.e.f. 5th February, 1991 shall count as ‘qualifying service’ for the purpose of pension etc. (3). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. (4). Respondent No.3-Corporation has filed its reply/affidavit averring that the service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1981 to 05.02.1991 was on work-charged basis and the same cannot be counted towards “qualifying service” in view of Rule 1(4)(d) of the Punjab Municipal Employees (Pension and GPF Rules) 1994 which expressly excludes the ‘work-charge service’ out of the ‘qualifying service’ for the purposes of retiral benefits. (5). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. CWP No.12646 of 2009.doc - 3 – (6). It is quite unfortunate that despite more than two decade old Full Bench decision of this Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab [1988(2) PLR 223 (FB)] herein somewhat similar provision contained in the Punjab Civil Services Rules which used to exclude the ‘work-charge service’ for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits was struck down by this Court, the respondents are harping upon such a feudalistic, archaic and unconstitutional rule. Suffice it to say that in the light of the above-stated Full Bench decision rendered in Kesar Chand’s case (supra), Rule 1 (4)(d) ibid has no enforceability in the eyes of law nor can it be invoked to deny the legitimate benefit of “work-charged service” rendered by the petitioner immediate before regularization of his services. (7). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 31.05.2007/01.06.2007 (Annexure P2) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of work-charged service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral dues admissible to the petitioner. The pension of the petitioner shall, accordingly, be CWP No.12646 of 2009.doc - 4 – revised from the due date and the entire arrears shall be paid to him along with interest @ 9% per annum. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs of Rs.10000/- to be paid by respondent No.3. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 23.08.2010 vishal shonkar