IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 16871 of 2008 Date of Decision: 14.7.2010. T. Shaktivail --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. M.K. Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondent no.1. Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 5. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner initially joined as Mate in H.U.D.A in January, 1978 on daily wage basis. He was later regularized on 3.8.1993. The petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation as Mate on 31.5.2003. He has been denied pensionary benefits. This petition has been filed seeking a direction to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. In the reply filed by the respondents it is stated that all retiral benefits including E.P.F, leave encashment and gratuity have been released in favour of the petitioner in the year 2003 itself, however, pension has not been granted as the petitioner has not completed 10 years of qualifying service on the date of the retirement. Admittedly, the petitioner has worked as a daily wager from the year 1978 to 2003. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the service rendered by the petitioner as daily wager was with intermittent breaks. The controversy is no more res integra and has been concluded by various judgements of this Court including the judgement reported as 2008 CWP. No. 16871 of 2008 -2- (2) RSJ 607 titled as Raja Ram Malik and another Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. And another, wherein a Division Bench of this Court while considering the similar issue held as under:- “ 9. In the case of Telu Ram Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others (Civil Writ Petition No. 9007 of 2002 decided on March 10, 2005, a Division Bench of this Court, while relying upon the cases reported as Joginder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1998 (2) LL.R Punjab & Haryana 73 and Manohar Lal Kakkar Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1998 (1) RSJ 300 (P&H), held that the petitioner therein was entitled to the consideration of the service rendered by him as daily-wager/work charge employee at the time of calculation of his pension. Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No. 19119 fof 2005 preferred against the decision in Telu Ram's case (supra) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on August 24, 2007. 10. It may also be mentioned here that the break in service of the petitioners had not been occasioned on account of any fault on their part but it was beyond their control and this interruption in service has to be condoned. The petitioners are held entitled to count their service rendered by them on work-charge basis as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated July 26, 2006 (Annexure P-6) is quashed. The respondents are directed to count the service rendered by the petitioners on work charge basis for the purpose of pension and to release the pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn by them in the B.B.M.B pay scales. There shall be no order as to costs.” CWP. No. 16871 of 2008 -3- In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to include the service rendered by the petitioner as daily wager towards the qualifying service in accordance with the rules and determine the pension payable to the petitioner, within a period of three months. On such determination, the resultant benefits will be released within a period of one month thereafter. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 14.7.2010. lucky