IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 498 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.3.2010 The Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Jalandhar -----Appellant Vs. Er. Manmohan Singh Kalsi and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. S.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. --- i) Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ii) To be referred to the reporters or not? iii) Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. Order dated 10.2.2010 dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution is recalled. Heard on merits. 2. This appeal has been filed against order of learned Single Judge holding the respondent-writ petitioner to be entitled to count service rendered by him with the appellant as part of service rendered with the Punjab State Electricity Board for pension and also requiring the appellant to pay its LPA No.498 of 2009 (O&M) contribution to the Electricity Board in respect of the said service. 3. The respondent writ petitioner joined service with the appellant on 3.1.1967 and served upto 4.2.1976. Thereafter, he applied through proper channel and on appointment, he joined the Punjab State Electricity Board from where he retired on 31.10.2002. He represented that service rendered with the appellant be counted for purposes of pension and the said claim having not been accepted, he filed writ petition in this Court relying upon instructions of the Government of India dated 31.3.1982, Annexure P.2, adopted by the State of Punjab vide circular dated 20.5.1982, Annexure P.3 and also by the Electricity Board vide circular dated 25.11.1985, Annexure P.4. The Board initially accepted the representation but later cancelled its decision on which writ petition was filed. 4. Learned Single judge upheld the claim of the respondent writ petitioner relying upon earlier judgment of this Court in S.C.Kapuria v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2008(1) RSJ 261. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 2 LPA No.498 of 2009 (O&M) 6. Only contention which has been put forward is that if government servant earlier resigned from the previous service, the benefit of the said service could not be given. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show any such pleading or argument before learned Single Judge. On the other hand, it was categoric case of the petitioner that he applied through proper channel and was selected by the Electricity Board and in such a situation, past service had to be counted. Judgments of this Court in Er. Inderjit Singh Bajwa v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.18855 of 2002, decided on 22.2.2007 and S.C.Kapuria relied upon in the impugned order have not been shown to be distinguishable. 7. At the time of admission of this appeal, no stay was granted and the impugned judgment which has been in operation for the last about two years may have been implemented. 8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 30, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3