Regular Second Appeal No.1290 of 2008(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1290 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Order: 18.11.2008 The Collector, Bhiwani, Disttrict Bhiwani and others ...Appellants Versus Munshi Ram ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana for the applicants. Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). C.M.No. 3822-C of 2008 Prayer in this application is for condonation of 25 days delay in filing the appeal. Counsel for the respondent does not oppose the prayer for condonation of delay. In view of the averments made in the application and the statement made by counsel for the respondent, delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.1290 of 2008 The State of Haryana, challenges judgments and decrees, dated 25.09.2004 and 14.12.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siwani and District Judge, Bhiwani, partly decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing their appeal, respectively. The plaintiff-respondent, filed a suit praying for grant of pension and other retiral benefits as he had put in 32 years of unblemished and uninterrupted service. The appellants opposed this prayer by asserting that the respondent was not entitled to count his service as a daily wager, towards eligibility for pension and other retiral benefits. Regular Second Appeal No.1290 of 2008(O&M) -2- After considering the respective stands taken in the pleadings and the evidence adduced and arguments addressed, the learned trial Court held that as the services of the respondent had been regularised on 31.03.1993, the prior period as a daily wager would count towards computation of eligibility for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. The State of Haryana filed an appeal challenging the correctness of the trial court's judgment. Vide judgment and decree dated 14,12,2007, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent is not entitled to receive pension etc. as he did not put in 10 years of regular service. His services were regularised on 31.03.1993, whereas he retired on 31.01.2001. As a result, he was not eligible for pension and other retiral benefits. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, by placing reliance upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Hari Chand v. Bhakra Beas Management Board and others, 2005(4) SLR, 215, submits that the service as a daily wager, rendered prior to regularisation has to be counted while completing qualifying service for the purpose of pension. It is submitted that the arguments urged in the appeal are squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment, the appeal be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgments. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below do not require interference. The respondent admittedly joined service as a daily wager in the year 1969. His services were regularised on 31.03.1993 and he retired on 31.01.2001, he was denied retiral benefits on the ground that the retiral benefits could only be paid to an employee, who has completed 10 years of regular service. The appellants relied upon Rule 3.17, to deny the retiral benefits to the respondent. The question whether service Regular Second Appeal No.1290 of 2008(O&M) -3- rendered as a daily wager, can be considered, while computing qualifying service for grant of pension, was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in, Hari Chand (supra) and was answered in the following terms:- “6. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. In view of the pleadings on record, factual position is not in dispute. Petitioner had served respondents as a daily wager and thereafter as a regular employee for the period of more than 12 years. Qualifying period to get pension is only 10 years. If service rendered by the petitioner as daily wager is counted towards qualifying service, he will become eligible to get pension. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Mohan Singh's case (supra). After analysing facts of that case and by placing reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1998(2) P.L.R. 223, it was opined that the period of work-charge service is required to be counted towards qualifying service. In the above- mentioned case, it was observed as under:- “ Even otherwise Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) P.L.R. 223, had held that under Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, period of service of a work-charged employee before their regularisation has to be computed towards qualifying service. In Kesar Chand's case (supra) sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, which provided that the period of service of work-charged establishment will not be counted while determining qualifying service, was struck down being violative of Regular Second Appeal No.1290 of 2008(O&M) -4- Article 14 of the Constitution.” Similarly, in Joginder Singh's case (supra), a Single Bench of this Court, while dealing with a similar situation, has interpreted Rule 13.17 (A) (f) & (g) of Rules and has opined as under:- “It will be evident from the aforesaid rule that it provides for the method by which the qualifying service is to be determined. Sub-clause (i) of clause (f) of Rule 3.7-A of the said Rules provides that even persons paid from contingencies are entitled to count half of their service as qualifying service provided the four conditions laid down in sub-clause (i) are fulfilled. It is the admitted position that the petitioner had worked for about 23 years in the respondent department bit for two breaks that were not due to any default on his part. It will also be seen that the stipulation in sub-clause (i) that half the period of service is to be counted towards qualifying service is to be read along with the subsequent four conditions in the same rule. These conditions read together clearly show that a person claiming qualifying service should have been working as a whole-time employee against a job for which a regular post should have been sanctioned with the payment of salary being made on a monthly or daily basis and that the service paid from contingency should have been continuous and without any break. To my mind, the facts of the case clearly spell out that the petitioner fulfilled these four conditions. I am also of the opinion that the stipulation in sub-clause (i) of the Clause (f) of Rule 3.17-A that only half the period of Regular Second Appeal No.1290 of 2008(O&M) -5- service is arbitrary and no logic or reason can be spelt out in it. In Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and others (supra), this Court while considering Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol.II which provided that if work-charged service was followed by regular employment, the period of work-charge service could not be taken into account for the purpose of determining the qualifying service was quashed being arbitrary and unjust.” In view of the binding precedent referred to hereinabove, the arguments sought to be raised by counsel for the appellant do not merit acceptance. As no question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. November 18, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE