R.S.A. No. 1841 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1841 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.05.2009 DHBVNL and others ....appellants versus Shiv Kumar ....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 5414-C of 2009 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of five days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and the delay of five days in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. R.S.A. No. 1841 of 2009 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.1.2009 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit for declaration with consequential relief, filed by the plaintiff/respondent, claiming benefit of work charge service for the purpose of pension, has been allowed. It cannot be disputed that the work charge service is to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The suit was contested primarily on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent had failed to give option and deposit the provident R.S.A. No. 1841 of 2009 (O&M) -2- fund within the stipulated period and, therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of work charge service being counted towards pensionary benefits. This plea has been rejected by the learned Courts below in view of the decision of this Court in Gurdev Singh Vs. HVPNL and others, 2007(2) RSJ 99 and also the judgment of this Court in RSA No. 1058 of 2008 (O&M) titled DHBVNL Vs. Hem Raj decided on 21.8.2008. In addition reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in Dilwar Singh Vs. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited, 2006(3) SCT 312. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law - ''Whether the service rendered by the plaintiff/respondent on work charge basis could be counted for pensionary benefits when the plaintiff/respondent himself failed to exercise the option within stipulated period and he failed to deposit the board's share of EPF?'' The substantial question of law already stands answered by this Court in number of cases referred to above, therefore, it cannot be said to be a substantial question of law. As this appeal raises no substantial question of law, no ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 01, 2009 R.S.