IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.687 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.8.2009 Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & others. -----Appellants Vs. Chandan Singh and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. This appeal has been preferred against order of the learned Single Judge, directing counting of daily wage service for pension. 3. The respondent was appointed on daily wage basis but, thereafter, his services were regularized. The service rendered by the respondent as daily wager was not taken into account for calculating pension, which led to filing of the writ petition. 4. The writ petition was contested with the plea that though service rendered on work-charged basis could be LPA No.687 of 2009 counted, service rendered on daily wage basis could not be counted for the purpose of pension. 5. Learned Single Judge relying upon earlier DB judgment of this Court in Kashmir Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others 2005(4) RSJ 581, held that once an employee has worked as whole time employee and was paid on monthly basis, the said service could not be ignored for calculating pension. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon Rule 6.16 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.-II, which requires qualifying service of 10 years for gratuity. Similarly, for pension also, qualifying service is laid down. The respondent rendered 9 years and 9 months of service on regular basis and 12 years services as daily wager. 8. In Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and others 1988 (5) SLR 27, a Full Bench of this Court held that denial of benefit of service rendered on work-charge basis for pension, when such service is followed by regularisation, would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The said reason is equally applicable where an employee serves as daily wager and his services continues for all purposes at par with regular service, as was the service rendered in the present case by the respondent. 2 LPA No.687 of 2009 9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 03, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3