IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5691 of 2009 Date of decision:02.03.2010 Ramesh Chand ....Petitioner versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Managing Direcotr, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ram Niwas Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for the relief that he should be allowed the pensionary benefits which is denied to him vide order issued on 27.01.2009. The rejection was on the basis that the petitioner is only a work charge employee and pension is not admissible to persons of such a category. 2. The petitioner refers to the regular scheme of regularization which was issued to Haryana Government circular letter No.6/15/99- IGS-I, dated 02.12.1999 regarding regularization of ad hoc class-III employees. The contention in defence is that this scheme of Civil Writ Petition No.5691 of 2009 - 2 - regularization was applicable only to ad hoc employees and not for work charged employees. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court in Kewal Singh Versus State of Punjab- 2003(1) RSJ 126, that held that an ad hoc employee and work charged employee were in principle the same and both served their respective employers for the duration of their employment. The Division Bench was considering the case while deciding the entitlement for regularization and for grant of pension for a person, who was on a work charge basis and when the objection was that the regularization was possible only for ad hoc employees and not for work charge workmen. The decision squarely applies to the facts of the case and by such a reckoning, the petitioner shall be taken to be regularized and would also be entitled to pensionary benefits. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board contends that the work charge employee shall be entitled to remain in duty till the completion of 60 years but the age of superannuation for regular employee is 58 years. The petitioner cannot continue in service if he wants consideration of his status as regular employee and claims entitlement to pension. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he has no objection to being treated as regular employee and superannuated on such a basis. The statement of the learned counsel is recorded to find that the petitioner shall not be kept in service till the completion of 60 years and he shall be liable for superannuation immediately if he completed 58 years of age. The petitioner shall also be Civil Writ Petition No.5691 of 2009 - 3 - entitled to the grant of pension by treating his employment as regular employment, he having completed 15 years of service as work charged employee. 5. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 02.03.2010 sanjeev