CWP No.16266 of 2009 (O&M) --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.2421 of 2010 and CWP No. 16266 of 2009 Date of decision : 23.2.2010 Kesar Singh Chandla and others ...Petitioners Versus Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL **** Present: Mr. K L Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Praveen K Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.2421 of 2010 This is an application under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for placing on record written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. The written statement filed along with the application is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at the appropriate place. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. CWP No.16266 of 2009 (O&M) --2-- CWP No.16266 of 2009 The claim of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the work-charge service rendered by them should be counted towards their regular service and the retiral benefits such as pension, gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension, etc. be granted to the petitioner Nos.1 to 8 along with interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioners joined the service of the respondents on the posts of T-Mate, Helper, Head Mistry and Fitter etc. on work-charge basis as per the details given in para 2 of the petition. They were promoted to the higher posts and worked for a number of years on work-charge basis and thereafter, their services were regularised. The petitioner Nos.1 to 8 retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation whereas petitioner Nos.9 to 12 are still in service of the respondent- Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited (in short 'the Nigam'). The petitioners are claiming that the service rendered by them as work-charge be counted towards regular service for granting the retiral benefits, including pension, in the case of petitioner Nos.1 to 8, whereas in the case of petitioner Nos.9 to 12, the same may be counted towards regular service. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the Nigam had issued a circular letter dated 06.08.1993 (Annexure P-1) wherein it was provided that its employees shall exercise their options within a period of three months from the date of their regularisation or from the date of issuance of the circular, whichever is later, as to whether he or she intends to count the period of work-charge service rendered by him/her towards pensionary benefits or intends to continue to be a member of CWP No.16266 of 2009 (O&M) --3-- EPF. Thereafter, another circular dated 9.8.1994 (Annexure P-2) for counting work-charge service for pensionary benefits was also issued wherein it was stated that the Haryana Government Notification No.1/2(55)-86-2 FR-II dated 4.2.1992 issued on the aforesaid subject was adopted by the Board/Nigam w.e.f. 9.1.1974. The grievance of the petitioners is that since these circulars were not got noted from them, they could not exercise any option for receiving the pensionary benefits. According to the petitioners, the benefit of the policy decision should have been extended to them as well and they are prepared to surrender the employer's share of EPF with interest. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam V. Bachan Singh, Civil Appeal No.4903 of 2009 decided on 30.7.2009 (Annexure P-7) and Single Bench decision of this Court in CWP No.17805 of 2009 (Bhunda Ram V. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others) decided on 25.2.2010, whereby similar controversy was decided by holding that as the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were not got noted in writing from the employees, a benefit could not be denied to them. In reply, however, it has been controverted by the Nigam by pleading that the instructions were duly pasted/published on the Notice Board. However, no evidence has been produced on record to substantiate and to show that in fact, the same were got noted from the petitioners. In view of the policy decision taken by the respondent CWP No.16266 of 2009 (O&M) --4-- and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (Annexure P-7) and Bhunda Ram's case (Supra), the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to exercise their option in terms of the Circular dated 6.8.1993 (Annexure P-1) and/or subsequent Circular dated 9.8.1994 (Annexure P-2) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter, the respondent-Nigam shall inform the petitioners the amount of employer's contribution towards EPF to be deposited by them along with interest within a period of one month as stipulated under the Instructions and upon receipt thereof, the petitioners shall deposit the same within a period of two months thereafter. After the receipt of amount to be deposited by the petitioners, the respondents are directed to count the work-charged service rendered by the petitioners, towards their pensionary benefits and since petitioners Nos.1 to 8 have retired, the same shall be released to them at the earliest. February 23, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) atulsethi JUDGE