RSA No. 613 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 613 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.5.2011. Haryana Power General Corporation Ltd. .......Appellants and others Vs. Singh Ram and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Abha Rathore, advocate for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that the service rendered by the plaintiffs on work charge basis be taken in consideration as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, earned leave, increments and seniority. The decree for mandatory injunction was also sought as a consequential relief directing the defendants to release the benefits claimed forthwith. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that they were appointed as trade-mate in the work charge capacity by the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were terminated by the defendant No.3 on 31.8.1982. The plaintiffs sought a reference RSA No. 613 of 2005 (O&M) -2- to the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal, vide award dated 16.11.1987, ordered for the reinstatement of the plaintiffs with continuity of service. Plaintiffs were regularised as work- mate on regular basis w.e.f. 19.6.1993. The service particulars of the plaintiffs as mentioned in Para 2 of the plaint are as under:- Name of the Plaintiff Date of joining the Board/Corpn. in the Work charge capacity Date of Regularisation of service on regular basis as workmate. Length of work charge service. Year-Month-Days Singh Ram 15.4.1981 19.6.1993 12 – 02 - 04 Duli Chand 16.8.1980 19.6.1993 12 – 10- 03 Hakim Singh 20.1.1981 19.6.1993 12 – 04- 19 Ram Kishore 12.9.1981 19.6.1993 12 – 04- 29 Dharampal 6.5.1981 19.6.1993 12 – 01- 13 Anang Pal 13.1.1981 19.6.1993 12 – 05- 06 Raj Bahadur 27.3.1981 19.6.1993 12 – 02- 22 Partap Singh 9.1.1981 19.6.1993 12 – 03- 18 Attar Singh 12.5.1980 19.6.1993 12 – 01- 07 Chinta Mani 1.4.1981 19.6.1993 12 – 02- 18 Om Parkash 27.1.1981 19.6.1993 12 – 04- 22 The services rendered by the plaintiffs on work-charge basis were liable to be taken in consideration while calculating their pensionary benefits etc. Defendants, in their written statement, admitted the service record of the plaintiffs. The service rendered by plaintiffs on work charge basis prior to 19.6.1993 could not be taken into consideration for calculating pensionary benefits etc. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive continuous work charge service as a qualifying RSA No. 613 of 2005 (O&M) -3- service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and on the work charge basis to be credited to their leave account? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for increments earned by them for the work charge service adduced into the basic pay of the plaintiff on 19.6.93 and the seniority on the cadre and rank mentioned by the plaintiffs from the date of their first appointment with the defendants? OPP 3. If issue No.1 and 2 are proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for arrears of enhanced basic pay along with interest from the date of payment? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 9. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2001, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal, filed by the RSA No. 613 of 2005 (O&M) -4- defendants, by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 1.5.2004. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no substantial question of law arises in this case in view of the decision of the Apex Court in 'Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Others versus Bachan Singh, JT 2009 (10) SC 352'. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 03, 2011 Gurpreet