CWP No.18940 of 2006 (O&M) --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.20613 of 2009 and CWP No. 18940 of 2006 Date of decision : 16.2.2010 Himat Singh ...Petitioner Versus Chief Accounts Officer, DHBVN & others. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL **** Present: Mr. Y P Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.20613 of 2009 This is an application under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for listing of the case and allowing the same in terms of the judgment dated 30.7.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4903 of 2009 titled Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others V. Bachan Singh. Notice of this application was issued to the learned counsel for the non- applicant/respondents. Mr. Praveen Gupta has appeared on behalf of the respondents and has stated that no reply is required to be filed to the said application and has very fairly conceded that the present case is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Bachan Singh's case (Supra). CWP No.18940 of 2006 (O&M) --2-- Accordingly, the Civil Misc. application is disposed of and with the consent of the parties, the main case is taken up for hearing. CWP No.18940 of 2006 This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition Nos.13856 of 2005 and 18940 of 2006 as the same are based on identical facts and common question of law is involved therein. However, for brevity, the facts have been taken from Writ Petition No.18940 of 2006. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of Office Order No.375 PF 3729 dated 13.9.2006 (Annexure P-4) and for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-determine the pension after counting the service of the petitioner as work-charge and for payment of arrears of difference with interest. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Attendant on 8.12.1973 on work-charge basis and he remained posted as such upto 2.2.1978. Thereafter he worked as work-charge Meter Mechanic from 3.2.1978 to 6.11.1985. The services of the petitioner were regularised on 7.11.1985 as Meter Mechanic and subsequently he was promoted as Laboratory Assistant on 01.02.1992. His cadre was changed in the month of April, 1999 as AFM and on 30.4.2005, he retired from service on superannuation as AFM. The claim of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the period of his work- charge service from 8.12.1973 to 6.11.1985, should be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits. In the written statement, the respondents contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not exercise his option in writing to adopt the pension scheme in the CWP No.18940 of 2006 (O&M) --3-- given time. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bachan Singh (Supra), contended that since the circular requiring the petitioner to exercise his option to adopt pension scheme was never got noted from him, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by this judgment and, therefore, he is entitled to the pensionary benefits, as claimed in this writ petition. As noticed in the order passed today in Civil Misc. No.20613 of 2009, the learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly conceded that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bachan Singh's case (Supra) has settled the issue involved in the present case and, therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of in terms thereof. In view of the consensus between the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bachan Singh's case (Supra). February 16, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) atulsethi JUDGE