Civil Writ Petition No. 20376 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 20376 of 2005 Date of decision: 6th May, 2008 Santokh Singh … Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for respondents. Mr. I.P.S.Dobia, Advocate for respondent No.3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by Santokh Singh, who was initially appointed on 23.02.1966 as a work-charged Fitter. After some break, he was again appointed on 21.05.1968 till 07.05.1969 as Adhoc employee with Bhakhra Bias Management Board (BBMB). Thereafter, 6th October, 1969 to 31st May, 1970 and lastly, on 8th July, 1970 to 4th August, 1970. This service period, as per the petitioner, has been verified and entries to this effect have been made in the service book of the petitioner. His services were regularized on 22.08.1970. Petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 30.11.1998. At the time of retirement, petitioner was working as Junior Engineer (Grade II) and was drawing basic pay of Rs.7500/- per month in the scale of Rs.6100-9400. Petitioner is aggrieved that the respondents have reduced the regular service of 28 years 3 months and 8 days to 27 years 3 months and 7 days for computation of pension. Petitioner has prayed that the work- charged and adhoc service render by him prior to his regularization ought Civil Writ Petition No. 20376 of 2005 2 to be taken into account as qualifying service for granting pension and retirement benefits. Respondent No.3, BBMB, in reply has stated that petitioner was employee of Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) and he was working against the quota of PSEB in the BBMB. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, 2 and 4, i.e. PSEB, it is stated that the Secretary PSEB vide his order dated 21st November, 2001 has ordered that adhoc service period or work-charged period for pensionary benefits should be taken into account only if the employee had served the organization uninterruptedly. Therefore, the period of 23.02.1966 to 19.12.1967, after break from 21.05.1968 to 05.07.1969, again with a break from 06.10.1969 to 31.05.1970 and lastly again with a break from 08.07.1970 to 04.08.1970 have not been taken into account in determining the qualifying service, on the basis of which pension was to be computed. PSEB has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Krishan Pal Singh v. The Punjab State Electricity Board and others CWP No. 18339 of 2003, decided on 04.04.2006, in which it has been held as under: “We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the PSEB and the BBMB are wholly independent entities. The employees of one Board cannot be inter-mingled with the other, although some employees of the PSEB may be permitted to serve the BBMB, on the basis of the share quota. However, these employees are sent to the BBMB on deputation. All along, the employees retain their lien with the PSEB. Having considered the entire matter, we are of the considered opinion that the claim put forward by the petitioner cannot be accepted. After serving the BBMB on worked charge/ ad hoc basis, he voluntarily resigned and accepted a fresh appointment with the PSEB, after competing in open selection. The appointment order itself makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner had been appointed by direct recruitment. Therefore, it would not be possible for us to hold that the petitioner is entitled to tag on the service rendered by Civil Writ Petition No. 20376 of 2005 3 him in the BBMB with the service rendered by him in the PSEB.” In the present case also, petitioner was working in BBMB against the share quota of PSEB. Thereafter, his services were regularized. Petitioner, even though was working at BBMB, his lien was with PSEB, as he was working against the share quota of PSEB. Petitioner has relied upon Annexure P-2, an order passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, wherein for the purposes of determination of gratuity, period commencing from 23.02.1966 has been taken into account. The judgment relied upon by the PSEB of Krishan Pal Singh v. The Punjab State Electricity Board and others is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The judgment of Krishan Pal Singh (supra) is distinguishable because there the employees were selected in PSEB and they had voluntarily resigned from BBMB. In the present case, situation is different. There was no cessation of relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and PSEB. Therefore, service rendered by the petitioner from 23.02.1966 to 04.08.1970 as work charged/ adhoc employee is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of computing pension and retiral benefits as well. Accordingly, we accept the present writ petition and direct the respondents to take into account service rendered by the petitioner from 23.02.1966 to 04.08.1970 for calculating pension of the petitioner. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE May 06, 2008 rps