CWP No.1127 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 18.08.2010 Radhey Shyam ... Petitioner Versus Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner was appointed as T-Mate on work charge basis on 01.05.1974. His services were regularised on 15.01.1986 as Technician Grade-II. The petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has filed this petition for issuing direction to the respondents to release his retiral benefits by adding the work charge service rendered by him from 01.05.1974 to 31.12.1979. The respondents have not counted the said service on the ground that inspite of the instructions issued vide circulars dated 06.08.1993 and 09.09.1994, the petitioner did not exercise the option within the stipulated period. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the aforesaid instructions, as the same were not got noted from him. The issue was considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.8573 of 2004 (Bharpoor Singh (Retd. AFM) Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, CWP No.1127 of 2010 -2- Ltd. and others) decided on 16.09.2005 and the similar claim of an employee for counting his work charge service was accepted. The SLP (Civil) No.7284 of 2006, filed against the said judgment, which was taken up with a bunch of SLPs, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court, while taking into consideration the above fact, has allowed CWP NO.16846 of 2007 (Ram Kishan Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others) decided on 09.09.2009, wherein it has been held as follows:- “In view of the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to show any record, whereby the aforesaid instructions were ever got noted from the petitioner. In view of this conceded factual position, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to exercise his option in accordance with the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994, within a period of three months from today, and thereafter, the work charge service of the petitioner be counted towards the pensionary benefits. It is made clear that in terms of the aforesaid instructions, the petitioner will deposit the employer's contribution of EPF with interest, immediately after exercising the option.” CWP No.1127 of 2010 -3- In the instant case also, learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show any record, whereby the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were ever got noted from the petitioner. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to exercise his option in accordance with the aforesaid instructions within a period of three months from today and thereafter, the respondents shall inform the petitioner regarding the amount of employer's contribution of EPF to be deposited by him within further one month, which shall be deposited by the petitioner within two months thereafter. After the deposit of the said amount by the petitioner, the respondents shall count his work charge service from 01.05.1974 to 31.12.1979 towards his pensionary benefits and consequently, release the enhanced amount without any delay. 18.08.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE