L.P.A. No.209 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.209 of 2007 Date of Decision 23.01.2009 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & another ......Appellants versus Karam Singh ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL. Present: Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate, for appellants. Mr.G.S.Bawa, Advocate, for respondents. ***** UMA NATH SINGH, J(ORAL): This LPA impugns the judgment dated 19.07.2007, passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.P.No.5136 of 1992. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. It appears that the respondent was appointed as a Work Charged T/Mate with Haryana State Electricity Board w.e.f. 16.01.1969 and was posted under Operation/Construction Sub Division, Kalanwali. He was given a higher post of Assistant Lineman on adhoc basis w.e.f. 10.04.1973 and he continued to work till his retirement on 31.07.1990. On his retirement, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking all retiral benefits including pension and others allowances admissible to him. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 19.07.2007 allowed the writ petition with direction to pay the retiral benefits admissible to him within L.P.A. No.209 of 2007 2 two months with an interest @ 9% per annum. Appellant-the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited has questioned the judgment of learned Single Judge on the ground that the respondent-employee had been given an offer for regularization of his services which he had refused and unless an employee is regularized under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, he would not be entitled to get any retiral benefit including pension. The learned Single Judge has not dealt with these issues and has passed the order only on the basis of length of service. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- employee submitted that after 1988, all the work charged employees, engaged with the Haryana State Electricity Board, were either regularized or were dis-continued. If the services of the respondent-employee had continued for about 21 years, there was a valid presumption that he had also been regularized, and further this submission is supported by the fact that the respondent-employee was getting the salary as admissible to a regular employee of the Board. On a careful consideration of rival submissions and perusal of a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.576 of 2008 dated 22.01.2008 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others versus Surji Devi, we do not find any serious infirmity in the impugned judgment granting benefits to the respondent-employee for the reasons that there was a clear intention on the part of employer to regularize the services of the respondent-employee. There was no complaint whatsoever during his service career of 21 years and, therefore, he was continued to work with one promotion to the post of Assistant Lineman, though said to be adhoc in nature. Besides, judgment of Hon'ble the Apex L.P.A. No.209 of 2007 3 Court (supra) says that an employee would be entitled to get retiral benefits if he is a permanent employee or a temporary employee. Further, the relevant portion of circular issued by Haryana State Electricity Board with memo No.58/NGD/G-1281/Ban.88 dated 08.02.1988, on reproduction, reads as: “The residual work-charged staff, who are either considered unsuitable, or do not find place for absorption against any regular post may be appointed as T/Mate on regular basis by getting the equivalent number of posts created with the approval of the board. The work-charged staff who are found suitable for various posts may be offered regular appointments with deemed date of 1.1.1988, thereby meaning that there would be no work- charged establishment w.e.f. 1.1.1988 in the Board.” This is also not in dispute that the respondent-employee was a member of Employee Provident Fund and was never declared unsuitable for his continuity in service. In view of all the aforesaid, we can draw valid inference that the respondent-employee was in regular employment of the Board with effect from the deemed date of 01.01.1988 in terms of the circular and, thus, on a technical ground of challenge by the appellant, the respondent- employee cannot be denied the retiral benefits. Hence, we do not find any merit in this LPA and the same is dismissed. (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE January 23, 2009 (A.N.JINDAL) mamta-II JUDGE