Harmesh Singh vs P.R.T.C., Patiala

M.L. Singhal, J.—Harmesh Singh was conductor in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala (for short PRTC). He filed suit for declaration that he was entitled to claim credit for the service rendered by him from October 21, 1966 to July, 1967 in matters of salary, seniority and all other related benefits. He sought mandatory injunction directing PRTC to count the said service and give him credit towards salary, seniority and other related benefits. It was alleged to the plaint that he joined service as conductor in PRTC on October 21, 1996 and continued as such til! July, 1967. Thereafter, he was again employed as conductor in May, 1971 and since then, he has been serving in PRTC Depot No. 1 Patiala.

Defendanl-PRTC contested the suit of the plain- tiff, it was denied that he rendered any service from October 21, 1996 to July, 1967. He was enlisted as conductor on 20.10.1966 on monthly basis. He com-milted fraud with PRTC with the result after July 31, 1967, his service was not renewed on month to month basis. He was, however, appointed afresh as conductor on May 24, 1971, in the appointment order, terms and conditions of appointment were mentioned.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to count his previous service from 21.10.66 to 31.7.67 towards salary, seniority and other benefits ? OPP

Whether the jurisdiction of this Civil Court is barred in the presence of Industrial Disputes Act ? OPD.

Relief.

Vide order dated 26.2.91, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Patiala decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to the credit for the service rendered by him as conductor in PRTC for the period 21.10.66 to July, 1967 and that he was entitled to the benefit of the service towards salary and other related benefits and for mandatory injunction directing PRTC to count his previous service from October 21, 1966 to July, 1967 towards salary etc., in view of his findings, that by analogy provisions of Rule 4.9 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume I Part I would be applicable in the case of the plaintiff though there is no such provision in the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations) 1981 that all duty in a post on a time scale counts for increment in that time scale.

PRTC went in appeal. Vide order dated 28.3.92, Additional District Judge, Patiala allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

Not satisfied with the order of Additional District Judge, Patiala, Harmesh Singh plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court.

In my opinion, the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala cannot be sustained. Rule 4.9 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volue I Part I lays down that al! duty in a post on a time scale counts for increment in thai time scale. Though there is no such provision in the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations) 1981, this Rule should be read so far as PRTC employees are concerned as this Rule embodies in it equity, justice and fair play. Plaintiff rendered service to PRTC with effect from October 21, 1966 to July, 1967. Thereafter, his service was disbanded. He was re-emloyed on May 24,1971 in PRTC and since then he has been serving in PRTC. If his services had been terminated on account of any fraud with the PRTC, he could not have been re-employed on May 24, 1971. He rendered service as conductor from October 21, 1996 to July, 1967 and, therefore, he is entitled to count that service towards salary etc.

Plaintiff filed this suit in August, 1989. No limitation is involved in this suit as (he plaintiff would be concerned with this service being counted for the computation of retiral benefits. He will, however, not be entitled to any arrears beyond the period of 36 months preceding the date of suit on account of credit being given to him for the service rendered by him after Oc-tober 21, 1966 to July, 1967.

For the reasons given above, this appeal succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. In consequence, judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala dated 28.3.92 are set aside and that of learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Patiala dated 26.2.91 are restored.

Appeal allowed.