CWP No.18588 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18588 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.09.2010 **** Harbhajan Singh ... Petitioner VS. Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. & 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. Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. AS Jatana, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to count the temporary/ad hoc service rendered by him w.e.f. 04.02.1969 to 17.06.1971 towards ‘qualifying service’ for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. (2). Suffice it to mention here that the petitioner joined respondent No.4 as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 04.02.1969 though the appointment letter was issued to him first time on 06.05.1969 (Annexure P1) only which indicates that the CWP No.18588 of 2009.doc - 2 – petitioner was appointed on ‘temporary basis’ in the regular pay scale. The petitioner continued to serve as such uninterruptedly till his services were regularized w.e.f. 18.06.1971. The petitioner thereafter has retired from service w.e.f. 28.02.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. (3). The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the service rendered by the petitioner from 04.02.1969 to 17.06.1971 deserves to be counted as ‘qualifying service’ for the purpose of retiral benefits? (4). The respondents have been granted several opportunities to file their reply/affidavit and lastly the following order was passed by this Court on 20.07.2010 :- “Last opportunity is granted to the respondent(s) to file counter-reply/affidavit. List on 29.09.2010. Let the needful be done before the adjourned date with an advance copy to the counsel opposite failing which there shall be cost of Rs.10,000/- personally recoverable from respondent No.3.” CWP No.18588 of 2009.doc - 3 – (5). Unfortunately, neither any reply has been filed nor the cost paid. The averments made by the petitioner have thus gone unrebutted. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. (7). In view of Rule 3.17 of CSR Vol-II, even the temporary service rendered by an employee is countable towards the ‘qualifying service’ for pension. The appointment letter dated 06.05.1969 (Annexure P1) expressly stipulates that the petitioner was appointed on ‘temporary’ basis in regular pay scale. That being so, the entire service period deserves to be reckoned for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits. (8). The writ petition is accordingly allowed; the respondents are directed to re-determine the pension and other retiral benefits/dues of the petitioner after taking into consideration the entire service rendered by him prior to his regularization i.e. w.e.f. 04.02.1969 to 17.06.1971. (9). The petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs of `10000/- already imposed on respondent No.3 vide order dated 20.07.2010. (10). The arrears of revised pension along with costs shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. CWP No.18588 of 2009.doc - 4 – (11). Ordered accordingly (12). Dasti . 29.09.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE