IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 165 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 15, 2011 State of Punjab and others …Appellants Versus Harbhajan Singh and another …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal by the State of Punjab is directed against the common judgment dated 16.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the claim of the writ petitioner- respondent for counting the daily wage service rendered by him, as qualifying service, for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits. Learned Single Judge has followed the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. is a member) in the case of Sadhu Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 18841 of 2007, decided on 25.7.2008) which was also a case of daily wage employees. They have put in more than 14 years of service as daily wage employees which was followed by regularisation. The Division Bench also noticed Rule L.P.A. No. 165 of 2011 (O&M) 3.17-A of the Rules and has held that the principles incorporated in Rule 3.17-A are based on the dicta laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) PLR 223. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition with 12% interest. 2. The argument which has now been raised, based on Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) was also raised by the appellant-State in Sadhu Singh’s case (supra) and the same was rejected in para 6 of the judgment. Even the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab against the Division Bench judgment rendered in Sadhu Singh’s case (supra), being SLP No. CC 5442 of 2009, has been dismissed vide order dated 22.4.2009. It has also remained undisputed that the judgment dated 16.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge has already been upheld by a Letters Patent Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. is a member) in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Ram Singh (LPA No. 153 of 2011, decided on 7.2.2011) 3. Having heard learned State counsel we are of the view that the matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Sadhu Singh’s case (supra) and the learned Single Judge did not commit any error of law by following that view. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) 2 L.P.A. No. 165 of 2011 (O&M) February 15, 2011 JUDGE PKapoor 3