CWP No. 5092 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5092 of 2010 Date of decision March 22, 2010 Ramesh Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate for the petitioners. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks for grant of pension on the ground that as a person who had been originally employed in the Health department on work charged basis, who had later been absorbed in Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board, he should also be extended to the benefits of a pension scheme, since some of the employees who had joined along with them in the department of Health and who were also regularized had come on deputation to the Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board and on being repatriated to their parent department they had the benefit of a pension scheme while the petitioners who had been absorbed on work charge basis in the Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board and later regularized in the Board have not been given the benefit of pension. 2. A request for extension of pension scheme has been repelled by the Superintending Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board on the ground that the petitioners cannot treat themselves as equal to persons who had come from the Department of Health on deputation to the Board and who on repatriation to the parent department CWP No. 5092 of 2010 2 were entitled to a pension by virtue of pension scheme which was applicable to them while the petitioners who were working in the Board on work charge basis and who are regularized as such with the Board itself cannot ask for applicability of the pension scheme. The rejection was on the ground that the petitioners were all covered by Contributory Provident Fund and no pensionary benefits could be made available to these employees only because their services were regularized in the year 1990 so long as there exists no such scheme. It cannot be a matter of a direction from this Court to the Board to float a pension scheme which is essentially a matter of policy that will have a bearing to the financial implications of the Board and the availability of a scheme that finds expression of willingness of all classes of workers. The judicial intervention sought against the order which is impugned is without any legal basis and is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 22, 2010 archana