IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6038 of 2011 Date of Decision : April 05, 2011. Balbir Singh Kalsi .....Petitioner versus The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Jaspal Singh Maanipur, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Junior Engineer from the respondent-Corporation w.e.f. 31.12.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is averred that though in terms of the policy circulars issued from time to time like the Office Order Nos.19 dated 1.2.1996 and 38 dated 15.3.1996, the petitioner's services were to be regularized w.e.f. 1.2.1996 and an entry to this effect was also to be made in his service book, but the respondents arbitrarily passed an order dated 20th September, 2004 whereby the petitioner has been brought on the regular establishment with effect from the date of issuance of the said order. It is also averred C.W.P.No .6038 of 2011 2 that the petitioner has been denied the pensionary benefits as, according to the respondents, he is not entitled to the same under the old rules as the new pension scheme applies to him. The petitioner's case, on the other hand, is that he was entitled to the pensionary benefits as his service ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 1.2.1996, more so when the services of all those employees who came to be appointed before 31.3.1989 were regularized from the said date. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is statedly in un-interrupted service w.e.f. 11.10.1976, I am of the considered opinion that it is imperative upon the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization of his services w.e.f. 1.2.1996 or any date prior thereto when the services of other similarly placed adhoc employees were regularized. It is directed that the above stated consideration shall not be denied to the petitioner on the ground of delay etc. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1-Corporation to consider the above-stated claim and in case it is found that the petitioner is entitled to regularization of his services from a date prior to passing of the order dated 20.9.2004, to grant such benefit to him within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The necessary consequential benefits shall also be paid within the stipulated period. C.W.P.No .6038 of 2011 3 Ordered accordingly. Dasti. April 05, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE