IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 20767 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.11.2010. Mamu Ram --Petitioner Versus U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate present in the Court on behalf of Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner was initially appointed as T-Mate on 17.2.1976 on work charge basis in the erstwhile H.S.E.B, which was later on converted into H.V.P.N.L and U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 9.8.1980 to the post of RTM. He was later promoted as A.L.M and Line Man. Petitioner retired from the post of Line Man on 30.9.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. One of the grievance of the petitioner is that his work charge service has not been counted towards the qualifying service for pensionary/retiral benefits. The other prayer is that he has not been granted the benefit of A.C.P Scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996, though the same has been duly approved and sanctioned vide order dated CWP. No. 20767 of 2010 -2- 20.3.2009 (Annexure P-3). From the perusal of the aforesaid order it appears that 1st A.C.P scale in favour of the petitioner has been sanctioned w.e.f. 1.1.1996 on parity with his junior Ram Bahadur. The grievance of the petitioner is that the benefit of this order has not been released to the petitioner till date. As far as the work charge period is concerned the issue is no more res integra having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Others vs. Bachan Singh (Civil Appeal No.4903 of 2009 decided on 30.7.2009. On the basis of the judgment in Bachan Singh (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.17805 of 2009 (Bhunda Ram vs. UHBVNL and others decided on 25.2.2010) made following directions:- “(9) For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to exercise his option in terms of the Circular dated 6.8.1993 (Annexure P-1)and/or subsequent circulars dated 9.8.1994 (Annexure P2) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter, the respondent-Corporation shall inform the petitioner the amount of employer's contribution towards EPF to be deposited by him alongwith interest within a period of one month as stipulated under the Instructions and upon receipt thereof, the petitioner shall deposit the same within a period of two months thereafter. After the receipt of amount to be deposited by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to count the work-charged service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 7.11.1968 to 16.1.1976 towards his pensionary benefits which shall accordingly be revised/released at the earliest.” The A.C.P scale has also been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of work charge period as CWP. No. 20767 of 2010 -3- well as the A.C.P Scale. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to release the benefit of A.C.P scale to the petitioner in terms of order dated 20.3.2009. After releasing the benefit the pay of the petitioner shall be re-determined by granting him the benefit of A.C.P Scale and consequently his retiral benefits be also re-determined by taking into consideration the work charge period. Let all the benefits be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 22.11.2010. lucky