R.S.A.No. 332 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 332 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.11.2009 U.H.B.V.N.L. and another ......Appellants Versus Bhim Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Vikrant, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Bhim Singh filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.2008. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were set aside by the Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 1 and 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “ As per the case of plaintiff, he was earlier R.S.A.No. 332 of 2009 (O&M) 2 appointed as T/Mate on work charge basis in the year 1965. Then he was promoted to the post of Work Charge Lineman in 1969. He was confirmed in January, 1973, regularized then on the post of A.L.M. w.e.f. 1.2.1973, then later he was promoted to the post of A.L.M. w.e.f. 16.6.2004. Later plaintiff retired on 31.1.2005 from the same post of A.L.M. All the time, plaintiff had performed his duty sincerely. But later, defendants wrongly fixed the pension of the plaintiff as Rs.2,728/- + DR, as per the letter of defendants dated 9.11.2005. Here, defendants have not taken into consideration the service of the plaintiff rendered by him on work charge basis, when these details were actually given to the defendants also through the legal notice of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit with the prayer of entitlement of benefit of service rendered by the plaintiff on work charge from 1965 upto January, 1973, and as such, entitled for revision of his pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other service benefit along with interest. For which, the present suit was filed. 2. Defendants on service field the written statement taking the preliminary objections of suit not maintainable, and on merits, denied if plaintiff for the first time was appointed as T/Mate on work charge in the year R.S.A.No. 332 of 2009 (O&M) 3 1965 or then later promoted as Work Charge Lineman in 1969. For them, plaintiff jointed as A.L.M. in 1973 on the basis of regular appointment and before that there was no service of the plaintiff as work charge T/Mate or work charge lineman, for which his one such period could not have been included for his service.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive benefit of service rendered by him on work charge basis from 1965 till January, 1973 with all consequential benefits like revision of pension, gratuity, leave encashment dues, amount of commutation of pension etc.? OPP 2. In case issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff then whether plaintiff is also entitled to relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit that the service rendered by him on work charge basis from the year 1965 to January, 1973 be taken R.S.A.No. 332 of 2009 (O&M) 4 in account while calculating his pensionary benefits. The plea taken by the defendants was that the plaintiff had not submitted his option that his work charge service be counted towards the pensionary benefits in terms of circulars dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994. A similar matter came up before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4903 of 2009 titled Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others v. Bachan Singh. Vide judgment dated 30.7.2009, number of appeals were disposed of as basic controversy involved in all the appeals was similar. Para Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 26 of the said judgment read as under:- “12. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, came to the definite conclusion that the appellants had failed to produce any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing from the respondent. The High Court further observed that in the absence of any such material, it can well be inferred that the respondent had no knowledge about the options called by the appellants vide circulars dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994. The High Court also observed that it would be unreasonable to deny pensionary benefits to the respondent despite the said circulars issued by the appellants. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed R.S.A.No. 332 of 2009 (O&M) 5 by the respondent and directed the appellants to permit the respondent to exercise his option in accordance with the circulars dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order and thereafter give him the consequential benefits subject to his fulfilling the conditions of eligibility for being governed under the pension scheme. The appellants aggrieved by the said judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court have approached this Court. 13. The appellants submitted that the respondent did not comply with the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 within the prescribed period as such was not entitled for benefits in terms of these circulars. 14. The High Court in its impugned judgment had categorically observed that the appellants had failed to produce any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing from the respondent. The appellants had also failed to produce such material from which it can be inferred that the respondent had any knowledge about the options called by the appellants vide instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994. The High Court also observed that in this view of the matter it would be unreasonable to deny pensionary benefits to the R.S.A.No. 332 of 2009 (O&M) 6 respondent and the similarly placed respondents. 26. In view of the law as has been articulated in a large number of cases where this Court has observed that any discriminatory action on the part of the Government would be liable to be struck down. Hence, in this case, it would be totally unreasonable and irrational to deny the respondent the pensionary benefits under the scheme particularly when the appellants have failed to produce any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing by the respondent. In the absence of any such material it can well be inferred that the respondent had no knowledge about the options called by the appellants.” In the present case the plaintiff was not a member of Employees Provident Fund and the learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the service rendered by the plaintiff on work charge basis was liable to be counted towards pensionary benefits. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 09, 2009 anita