IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1362 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.2.2011 Punjab State Electricity Board and another … Appellants Versus Sat Pal …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.H.S.Grewal, Advocate for the appellants. Sabina, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he had joined the service as work charge employee with the defendants w.e.f. 1.3.1977. Services of the plaintiff were regularized on 11.5.1990 and plaintiff was promoted as Assistant Lineman on his regularization. On 15.10.1984, plaintiff while on duty fell down from the electric pole and suffered serious injuries on his spinal chord. Plaintiff was removed to the hospital and remained admitted there as indoor patient from 1.11.1994 to 12.11.1994 and again from 1.12.1994 to 1.7.1995. Plaintiff had remained admitted in DMC Hospital, Ludhiana from 18.10.1994 to 31.10.1994. Plaintiff was declared unfit for service vide medical report dated 12.1.1998 w.e.f. 1.3.1996. Plaintiff had not been allowed pensionary benefits. Hence the suit was filed. Defendants in their written statement averred that plaintiff had joined as work charge employee on 16.4.1977 and was regularized as regular trade man male on 11.5.1990. Plaintiff was promoted as Assistant Lineman on 24.8.1993. As per rules, an employee can be allowed pensionary benefits from the date he submits his medical certificate. Plaintiff could not get pensionary benefits w.e.f. 1.3.1996 as he had submitted the certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Kapurthala on 13.1.1998. The plaintiff had suffered disability to the extent of 75% and not 100% as alleged by him. Wife of the plaintiff was appointed as a peon on compassionate grounds vide order dated 6.12.1999. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether order dated 1.3.1996 is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside? OPP. RSA No.1362 of 2010 (O&M) 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether no cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff to file the suit? OPD 7. Relief.” The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.2008 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held that plaintiff was entitled for pensionary and other benefits after considering his work charge service as qualifying service. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the plaintiff filed his cross objections. Vide judgment and decree dated 8.10.2008, District Judge Kapurthala dismissed the suit filed by the defendants and allowed the cross objections filed by the plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the plaintiff had initially joined the service of the defendants on work charge basis and lateron his services were regularized. Plaintiff suffered serious injuries while he was on duty. Since the plaintiff could not recover from the injuries suffered by him, he was declared unfit for service vide certificate Exhibit D-5 w.e.f. 1.3.1996. Since, the plaintiff was made to retire because of his disability, he was entitled to be allowed pensionary benefits and other benefits by considering his disability. Plaintiff had suffered disability on account of the injuries suffered by him while he was on duty. The work charge service rendered by the plaintiff was also liable to be taken into consideration while calculating his qualifying service for pension. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge 15.02.2011 sd 2