IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.230 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 10, 2011 Municipal Corporation, Amritsar ….Appellant Versus Pritam Lal and others …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. The short issue raised in the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is as to whether the services rendered by a municipal employee on work-charge basis followed by regularisation would qualify for pension or not. It is conceded position on facts that the petitioner-respondent was working on work-charge basis w.e.f. 1.1.1981 and his services were regularised on 5.2.1991. He attained the age of superannuation and accordingly, retired on 31.3.2002. The learned Single Judge while placing reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) PLR 223 held that no rule of the appellant-Municipal Corporation would come in the way of the writ petitioner-respondent as a similar rule in the Punjab Civil Services Rules was declared unconstitutional in Kesar Chand's L.P.A. No.230 of 2011 (O&M) - 2- case (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to include the work charge service in the qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits admissible to the writ petitioner-respondent and entire arrears were to be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The writ petitioner-respondent has also been awarded costs of Rs.10,000/-. We have heard Mr. R.D. Bawa, learned counsel for the appellant-Municipal Corporation at some length and find that there is no valid plea put forward by him warranting admission of the appeal. We fully concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and law on the subject is well settled. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 74 days in filing of the appeal. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 10, 2011 JUDGE satish