-1- Civil Writ Petition No.17956 of 2006. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 25,2008. Raja Ram Malik and another ... Petitioners VERSUS Haryana Vidut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., through its Secretary, Panchkula and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Raja Ram Malik (petitioner No.1) served Bhakra Beas Management Board- respondent No.3 (for short `B.B.M.B) on work-charge basis from February 24, 1966 to May 30, 1977 in -2- Civil Writ Petition No.17956 of 2006. the construction work of Bhakra Power Houses. He was retrenched from the work-charge service on May 30, 1977 and was paid the retrenchment compensation by the B.B.M.B. He was again appointed as an Electrician on ad hoc in the B.B.M.B with effect from May 31, 1977. Thereafter, he was appointed on regular basis with effect from December 27, 1977. He had been working in the B.B.M.B since then as per share of Haryana State Electricity Board, now Haryana Vidut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (for short H.V.P.N.L.). Similarly, Rajinder Singh (petitioner No.2) was appointed on June 01, 1965 as T.Mate on work-charge basis by the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short P.S.E.B) and he worked upto February 19, 1968. He was paid retrenchment compensation for the service rendered by him from June 01, 1965 to February 19, 1968. On February 20, 1968, he was again appointed on regular basis as an Electrician by the B.B.M.B, Nangal and in view of the provisions of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 (for short `the Act'), his services were allocated to H.V.P.N.L. Since then, he had been working with the B.B.M.B as per the share quota of H.V.P.N.L. The claim of the petitioners, who have retired from service, is that they are entitled to the benefit of counting their service rendered on work-charge basis towards pensionary benefits. They seek quashing of the order dated July 26, 2006 (Annexure P-6) whereby this benefit has been declined to them. A direction is sought to the respondents to count the -3- Civil Writ Petition No.17956 of 2006. work-charge service rendered by the petitioners for grant of time bound promotional scale after 8/18 years service and to count the same for pensionary benefits and to release the pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn by them in the B.B.M.B. In the separate written statements filed by H.V.P.N.L and B.B.M.B, the claim of the petitioners has been contested. It has been pleaded that at the time of retrenchment of the petitioners Nos.1 and 2, they were paid retrenchment compensation/gratuity amounting to Rs.2416.45 and Rs.275, respectively, which was accepted by them and thereafter their appointment was made afresh. It has further been pleaded that since the petitioners have not rendered service either on work-charge basis or on ad hoc basis with H.V.P.N.L, therefore, they are not justified in raising their claim for counting the service rendered on work-charge basis for the purpose of pensionary benefits. We have heard Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate, appearing for H.V.P.N.L and Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, appearing for B.B.M.B and have perused the records. On the last date of hearing i.e March 11, 2008, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents sought time to file an affidavit in respect of regularization of the services of the petitioners either with B.B.M.B or H.V.P.N.L. Today, along with Civil Miscellaneous No.5422 of -4- Civil Writ Petition No.17956 of 2006. 2008, affidavit of Mr. A.K. Jain, Superintending Engineer, Transmission System, H.V.P.N.L, Panchkula, has been filed. The same is ordered to be taken on record. In this affidavit, it has been stated that the appointment of both the petitioners was a fresh appointment and their services rendered on work – charge basis were never regularized by the H.V.P.N.L. It has also been stated that petitioner No.1 had also given an undertaking (Annexure R-1/3) to the effect that he would not claim any benefit for the service rendered by him in the work-charge capacity in B.B.M.B from February 24, 1966 to May 30, 1977. The petitioners have filed replication to the written statement of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 along with Civil Miscellaneous No.5330 of 2008. The same is ordered to be taken on record. In the replication, besides reiterating the pleas taken in the writ petition, it has been stated that if any amount of E.P.F had been paid to the work-charge employees prior to the regularization, they were given the option to deposit the same in 24 monthly instalments vide letter dated August 09, 1994 (Annexure P-11) issued by the H.V.P.N.L.. Thereafter, this time period of monthly instalments was extended from 24 instalments to 36 instalments vide letter dated June 02, 1995 (Annexure P-12). In view of letters Annexures P-11 and P-12, both the petitioners gave options (Annexures P-13 and P-14) for counting of their work-charge service towards pensionary benefits in H.V.P.N.L. It has been stated that as the respondents did not take any action on their options, they could -5- Civil Writ Petition No.17956 of 2006. not deposit the E.P.F amount paid to them prior to regularization of their services. In the written statement filed by the B.B.M.B, it has been admitted that petitioner No.1 was appointed on regular basis with effect from December 27, 1977 and petitioner No.2 was appointed on regular basis with effect from February 20, 1968. The averment made in para No.12 of the writ petition that at the time of retirement last pay drawn by petitioner No.1 was Rs.8825/- in the B.B.M.B Pay Scales and in respect of petitioner No.2 it was Rs.10,000/-, has not been denied by the respondents in their written statements. In the case of Telu Ram v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others (Civil Writ Petition No.9007 of 2002 decided on March 10, 2005, a Division Bench of this Court, while relying upon the cases reported as Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1998 (2) I.L.R Punjab and Haryana 73 and Manohar Lal Kakkar v. State of Punjab and others, 1998 (1) R.S.J 300, held that the petitioner therein was entitled to the consideration of the service rendered by him as daily-wager/work charge employee at the time of calculation of his pension. Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No.19119 of 2005 preferred against the decision in Telu Ram's case (supra) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on August 24, 2007. It may also be mentioned here that the break in service of the petitioners had not been occasioned on account -6- Civil Writ Petition No.17956 of 2006. of any fault on their part, but it was beyond their control and this interruption in service has to be condoned. The petitioners are held entitled to count their service rendered by them on work-charge basis as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated July 26, 2006 (Annexure P-6) is quashed. The respondents are directed to count the service rendered by the petitioners on work-charge basis for the purpose of pension and to release the pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn by them in the B.B.M.B. Pay Scales. There shall be no order as to costs. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE March 25, 2008. ak