R.S.A.No.1259 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.1259 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.3.2011 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.Patiala ......Appellant Versus Gurdev Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction that the defendant be directed to fix the pensionary benefits of the plaintiff after taking in consideration the service rendered by him on daily wage basis. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff was appointed as a security guard on daily wage basis in March, 1989 and thereafter his services were regularised by the defendant. Plaintiff retired from the service on 7.11.2001. However, the service rendered by the plaintiff on daily wage basis had not been taken in consideration while calculating his pensionary benefits. R.S.A.No.1259 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Defendant in its written statement stated that the plaintiff had been appointed as work charge security guard in March, 1989. It was, however, denied that the services of the plaintiff were later regularised as security guard. Plaintiff was appointed as daily wage security guard on 7.7.1989 and worked with the defendant with intervals. Thereafter, the plaintiff was regularised in service. It was admitted that the plaintiff had retired from service on 30.11.2001 and was directed to submit his pensionary papers. However, it was averred that the service rendered by the plaintiff on daily wage basis or on work charge basis could not be taken in consideration for calculation of pensionary benefits. Hence, the plaintiff was not entitled to receive pension as per rules. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled regular pension commuted value of pension w.e.f. 1.12.2001 by taking into account his daily wage service w.e.f. March 1989 as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Mandatory Injunction as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 4.Whether the Civil Court at Patiala has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected u/o 7 rule (j) CPC as alleged ? OPD 6. Relief.” R.S.A.No.1259 of 2011 (O&M) 3 The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.2009 and it was held that the plaintiff was entitled for pension w.e.f. 1.12.2001. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the defendant preferred cross-appeal/objections. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.4.2010, the District Judge held that the service rendered by the plaintiff on daily wage basis was liable to be counted towards pension. Consequently, the cross-objections/ appeal filed by the defendant-Board was dismissed and the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed to the extent that the plaintiff be paid the pensionary benefits along with interest @ 6% per annum. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. It has been held by this Court in Kashmir Chand vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others 2005 (4) RSJ 581, as under:- “In view of the above, were of the opinion that services rendered by the petitioner on daily wage and work charge basis should be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The petitioner was working as a whole time employee and was paid wages on monthly basis. The respondents have not disputed that there was no wilful absence from duty by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the period of service of 6 years and 29 days rendered by the petitioner on daily wage basis has R.S.A.No.1259 of 2011 (O&M) 4 to be reckoned while computing the pensionary benefit of the petitioner.” Relying upon the said decision as well as other judgments, taking similar view, passed by this Court, the Courts below have, thus, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 15, 2011 anita