CWP No.18221 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18221 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.10.2010 **** Dharam Raj . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. SK Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, DAG Punjab Mr. Jashmer Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is working as Sewadar/Chowkidar. He had initially joined on 26.07.1973 as such under respondent No.4 and 5, namely, the Punjab Health Division No.2 at Rajpura through the Employment Exchange. The services of the petitioner was thereafter transferred to the Punjab State Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. – respondent NO.2 w.e.f. 01.01.1978. While serving in the Corporation, the petitioner’s service CWP No.18221 of 2009.doc - 2 – came to be regularized w.e.f. 20.01.1995 vide the order dated 26.09.2000 (Annexure P2). While serving as such in the Corporation, the petitioner was again transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Patiala, vide the impugned order dated 16.01.2006 (Annexure P6). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, challenging the transfer order on the ground that he was regular employee of respondent No.2 and could not be transferred by treating him to be a work-charged employee as he has already been regularized vide order dated 20.01.1995. (2). The respondents have filed their replies/affidavit. (3). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the petitioner’s transfer order has been recalled/cancelled and he has been regularised in the Corporation which is not disputed. (4). Learned counsel of the petitioner, however, contends and rightly so that due to his transfer to the Corporation, the petitioner has not been granted his due annual increment(s). He further urges that the services rendered by the petitioner in the Municipal Corporation, Patiala – respondents No.4&5 is liable to be counted for the CWP No.18221 of 2009.doc - 3 – purposes of pensionary benefits on his retirement which is due in future. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the impugned transfer order has been cancelled, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to grant the due annual increment(s) to which the petitioner is found entitled to in due course of law and also to consider his claim for the release of service benefit of Proficiency Step up etc. after counting the past service rendered by him. (6). Keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is a Class IV employee and also to avoid the scope of any possibility of further litigation, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s claim regarding counting of his services which he rendered in the Public Health Division before his transfer in the services of Corporation, for the purposes of pension/retiral benefits qua the petitioner. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 12.10.2010 CWP No.18221 of 2009.doc - 4 – vishal shonkar