RSA No. 1058 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- RSA No. 1058 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.08.2008 DHBVNL Vidyut Nagar, Hisar and others .......Appellants Versus Hem Raj .......Respondent(s) Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr. Anand Bishnoi, Advocate for the appellant Mr. S N Yadav, Advocate for the respondent -.- NIRMALJIT KAUR , J. The suit for declaration was filed by the respondent/plaintiff to count his service of work charge performed with effect from 03.01.1969 to 17.04.1979 and to re-fix his pension after counting his service of work charge as well as to revise all retiral benefits. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 09.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (SD) Rewari. The appeal against the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 03.12.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari. The present regular second appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The argument raised by learned counsel for the RSA No. 1058 of 2008 (O&M) 2 appellants/defendants is that the respondent/plaintiff was employed as T Mate on work charge basis on 03.01.1969 in the department and after a gap of one year, he was re-appointed as T Mate on work charge basis in the year 1972. The services of the respondent/plaintiff were regularized as ALM with effect from 17.04.1979. As per service jurisprudence, service of the work charge is counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits only if the employee submits his option within a stipulated period to become a member of GPF instead of EPF. In the present case, the respondent/plaintiff did not submit his option to become a member of GPF. Hence, the services rendered by the respondent/plaintiff on work charge basis cannot be counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, he is not entitled to revised pay. Counsel for the respondent while meeting out the argument has placed reliance on judgments rendered in the cases of “Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and Others”, Recent Services judgments (1950-1988) 433, “Gobindi Devi Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & others, 2006 (3) RSJ-641, “Ram Kumar & Others Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Others, 2006(4) RSJ-125 and “Gurdev Singh Vs. H.V.P.N.L. & Others, 2007(2)RSJ -99. The judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand's case (supra) has also been relied in the case of Ram Kumar's case (supra), wherein in the concluding para, it was held that :- “Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioners would be entitled to change their option for the pensionary benefit scheme. This would, however, be subject to the RSA No. 1058 of 2008 (O&M) 3 condition that the petitioners do not claim the benefit of ad hoc service towards provident fund and the amount deposited by the employer from the date of payment till retirement of the respective petitioner along with interest if refunded by him. If the petitioners deposit the said amount of employer's share along with interest thereon up to the date of deposit within two months from the receipt of certified copy of the order and also comply with all other conditions as contained in circular dated 06.0-8.1993 (Annexure P1) as clarified vide circular dated 09.08.1994 (Annexure P-2), the respondents shall allow the petitioners to exercise their option for pensionary benefits scheme. The work charge period of service followed by regularization shall also be counted for the grant of pensionary benefits.” The only objection raised by the appellants/defendants is that Hem Raj had not exercised his option to become the member of GPF instead of EPF within the stipulated period, which controversy has also been resolved in the case of Gurdev Singh (supra) by holding that the employer's contribution in the provident fund drawn by the employee shall be adjusted and set off from the arrears which may become payable after the calculation and computation. In any case, pensionary benefits cannot be denied on mere technicalities. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view to the one taken by both the Courts below. It cannot be said that the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below are, either perverse or based on RSA No. 1058 of 2008 (O&M) 4 misreading of evidence. No question of law, much less substantial questions of law, arises for determination in the instant appeal. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. [NIRMALJIT KAUR] JUDGE August 21, 2008 mohan