LPA No. 176 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 176 of 2009 Date of Decision: 01.02.2010 Piara Singh and others ....Appellants. Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate with Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Rita Kohli, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the State. Mr. S.D. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate Mr. M.J.S. Sethi, Advocate for respondent No.4. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 9.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that Tubewell Operators are not entitled to any pension for the period they rendered service with the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation and are entitled only to the benefit of contributory provident fund. Brief facts of the present case are that members of the appellant LPA No. 176 of 2009 2 – association were appointed between 1958 to 1975 for running tubewells in various villages or various districts for irrigation purposes. But in the year 1982, State of Punjab took a decision that all the tubewells of the Punjab State Tubewell Circle of the Irrigation Branch are to be transferred to Punjab State Tubewell Corporation. As a result thereof, services of all tubewell operators and mechanical staff were terminated w.e.f. 31.8.1982 and a decision was taken to give tubewell operators and mechanical staff retrenchment compensation. However, thereafter, the appellants were taken into service of the Corporation. Learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Gurmail Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, JT 1991(1) SC 351, came to the conclusion that in compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court in Gurmail Singh's case (supra), past service of the tubewell operators, which they had rendered in the Irrigation Department is to be calculated for the purpose of the length of service and grant of post-retirement benefits. However, it does not include pension. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the words used in the judgement “post-retirement benefits” would include pensionary benefits also. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the Corporation, there is no rule/regulation to pay pension to any of the employee. If argument of the appellant is accepted then it would amount to two classes of employees in the Corporation, one which would be getting pension and the other would be deprived of pension. We have perused the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in Gurmail Singh's case (supra). We find that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in LPA No. 176 of 2009 3 Gurmail Singh's case (supra) nowhere observed that pensionary benefits shall be granted to the tubewell operators for the period they have rendered service in the Corporation. We find some force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that in case pensionary benefit is granted to the members of the appellant – association then there would be two classes of the employees in the Corporation. Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not permit any discrimination. If members of the appellant – association were absorbed in the Corporation and their past service rendered in the Irrigation Department was counted, they were given benefit thereof, then there cannot be any grievance left. We find no infirmity in the judgement of the learned Single Judge. This appeal is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 01.02.2010 sk.