IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1644 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 15, 2009 Jit Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - None for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release retiral benefits to the petitioner. It has been pleaded that the petitioner joined service of respondents in Department of Food & Supplies, Punjab as Watchman. The name of the petitioner was sponsored by Employment Exchance and therefore, employment itself was regular although the appointment was shown as temporary. Seniority list was also drawn. The petitioner continued to serve the respondents till CWP No.1644 of 2009 [2] attaining the age of 60 years and was retired w.e.f. 31.12.2006. Retiral benefits were not paid to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. One Nazar Singh filed Civil Writ Petition No.18567 of 2004 which was disposed of with direction to decide his representation. Relief was granted by the respondents. It has further been pleaded that services of the persons shown junior to the petitioner in seniority list, were regularised. It is in this backdrop of facts that the petitioner claims regularisation and retiral benefits. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 4.5.2005 for regularisation of services. Since no action was taken, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.15683 of 2005. The petition was disposed of on 30.9.2005 with direction to the respondents to decide the representation within three months. Direction was not complied with, whereupon the petitioner was constrained on filing Contempt of Court Petition No.318 of 2006. During the pendency of the contempt petition, order dated 9.1.2006 was passed whereby representation of the petitioner was rejected while saying that posts were not available. Be that as it may, the petitioner challenged the said order by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No.16184 of 2006 which was admitted and is pending. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, retired on 31.12.2006, however, without payment of retiral benefits. CWP No.1644 of 2009 [3] It has been pleaded that the case of the petitioner would be covered by similar other cases including Civil Writ Petition No.7780 of 2004 (Rakha Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others) decided on 27.1.2005 and Civil Writ Petition No.16786 of 2001 (Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab) decided on 5.12.2002. Learned counsel for the respondents admits that cases of persons similarly situated have been allowed. It has also been brought out that Instructions dated 17.4.2009 have been issued by the respondent-Department whereunder relief has been given to persons such as the petitioner. It has further been brought out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the State of Punjab had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which was dismissed. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court towards a later order passed by this Court passed on 22.7.2009 while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.15397 of 2007 titled `Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’. In Amrik Singh’s case (supra), the following has been held:- “I have considered the issue. Instructions/decision No.AB7(806)-2009/950 dated 17.4.2009 (Annexure P-8) has been issued by the office of Director, Food Civil Supplies and Public Distribution, Punjab, to all District Food and Supplies Controllers in the State of Punjab. The instructions/decision (Annexure P-8) reads as under:- “This is in reference to head office memo No.AB6(650)-2007/395 dated 5.3.2007 on the above subject. CWP No.1644 of 2009 [4] 2. Through the letter under reference it was written to you that the temporary chowkidars are not entitled to pensionary benefits. As such they should not be given pensionary benefits and those to whom such benefits have been released after their retirement, necessary action be initiated to recover the same back. 3 The said instructions were challenged by the retired chowkidars before Hon'ble high court and a number of petitions were filed out of which approximately eleven cases were decided in their favour and some of the petitions are still pending in the Hon'ble High Court which are also likely to be decided in their favour. The Department had filed an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakha Singh against the decision of Hon'ble High court, which has also been decided in favour of Department as under:- “Regarding grant of pensionary benefits to temporary chowkidars, they be treated at par with regular employees and pensionary, superannuation compensation, invalid pension and DCRG are payable to them.” 4. In this context the Department had also engaged a counsel of High Court for getting his opinion who has also opined through his legal opinion dated 5.3.2009 that the decision in the case of Rakha Singh Chowkidar of Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to all the temporary chowkidars and there is no occasion to challenge the decisions rendered by Hon'ble High Court before Hon'ble Supreme Court in their cases. 5. Upon consideration of whole issue it has been decided that head office memo No.AB6(650)-2007/395 dated 5.3.2007 is not legally correct and hence the same is hereby withdrawn. 6. You are hereby instructed to restore the pensionary benefits given to the retired chowkidars and in case any recovery etc. has been effected from these chowkidars, the same may also be restored to them so that the compliance of decision of Hon'ble High court could be made.” I have also taken note of the fact that similar issue was raised before this court wherein, while referring to the earlier decisions of this Court and instructions/decision extracted above, the claim of petitioner therein was allowed while dealing with CWP 14418 of 2008 (Mela Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 11.5.2009. Having considered the facts and circumstances noticed above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit, he having served the respondents for 22 years. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The pensionary benefits be released to the petitioner within 3 months of receipt of certified copy of this order.” CWP No.1644 of 2009 [5] Considering the stand of the respondents to the effect that the issue is covered by judgment dated 22.7.2009 rendered in Amrik Singh’s case (supra), this petition is allowed in the same terms as in Civil Writ Petition No.15397 of 2007 titled `Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’, portion of which has been extracted above. (AJAI LAMBA) September 15, 2009 JUDGE Avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?