Civil Writ Petition No. 261 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 261 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 5.04.2011 Kashmiri Lal .....Petitioner VERSUS The Uttar Haryna Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sagar Deswal, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. C.M. No.4547 of 2011 Reply taken on record. Application disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No. 261 of 2011 The petitioner was employed as T-mate on work charge basis on 13.6.1969. He continued to work as such till 30.4.1979. The petitioner was appointed on regular basis as Assistant Lineman w.e.f. 1.5.1979, and thereafter, he worked on various places. Subsequently, he was granted promotion to the post of Lineman. The petitioner finally superannuated w.e.f. 31.7.2006. He has been granted pension but without taking into consideration his period of work charge service from 13.6.1969 to 30.4.1979 i.e. about 10 years. When the petitioner remained unsuccessful after number of representations, he served legal notice. The petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 261 of 2011 -2- has now filed this writ petition claiming benefit of work charge service for the purpose of grant of pension. The response in the reply is usual i.e. that the petitioner was required to give an option in view of instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 within a period of three months, if he intended to count the period of work charge service towards pensionary benefits. The stand taken in the reply is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the case of Dilawar Singh Versus Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. and others, 2006(3) RSJ 689, where this issue has finally been concluded by holding that work charge service rendered by an employee, is to be counted. The issue of option has also been considered in this case. It is observed that the denial of prayer for counting work charge service on the ground that the petitioner had failed to exercise option was found to be without basis. I find the denial on this ground to be unfair. The writ petition is allowed in terms of Dilawar Singh's case (supra) and the petitioner shall be entitled to count the work charge service for grant of pensionary benefits. The work charge service shall also be countable for grant of additional increments after 8/18 years service and Higher Standard Pay Scale after 10/20 years of service. The arrears in above noted case were restricted for a period of 38 months from the date of filing of the writ petition. In the present case, also the arrears would be so restricted. April 05, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE