AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The only question raised for determination before this Court is that the period spent by the petitioners as work charged employees should and ought to be counted for the purpose of qualifying service and for grant of pension. This matter is no longer res-integra. In CWP No. 2240 of 2008 titled The State of H.P. and others Vs. Sh. Tulsi Ram decided on 31.5.2012, the Division Bench of this Court holds:-
In Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and Others, a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an employee is entitled to count the service rendered by him on work charge basis for counting the whole of his service for the purpose of calculating the pension and gratuity. The State of Himachal Pradesh is admittedly counting the service rendered on work charge basis for calculating the pension. This decision does not deal with the question of counting service rendered on daily wages for calculating the qualifying service for purposes of pension.
This very decision relied upon by this Court was again reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Narata Singh and Another, , holding:-
This appeal by special leave is directed against judgment dated January 25, 2006 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 694 of 1995 by which the appellants have been directed to count previous service rendered by respondent No. 1, Narata Singh, in the Departments of Punjab State as work charged employee for the purpose of determining qualifying service for pension payable to him as an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short, the ''Board'').
In Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , the Full Bench held that Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Full Bench decision was challenged before this Court by filing a SLP which was dismissed. Thus, the ratio laid down by the Full Bench judgment that any rule which excludes the counting of work charged service of an employee whose services have been regularized subsequently, must be held to be bad in law was not disturbed by this Court. The distinction made between an employee who was in temporary or officiating service and who was in work charged service as mentioned in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules disappeared when the said rule was struck down by the Full Bench. The effect was that an employee holding substantively a permanent post on the date of his retirement was entitled to count in full as qualifying service the periods of service in work charged establishments.
In view of this settled position, there is no manner of doubt that the work charged service rendered by the respondent No. 1 under the Government of Punjab was qualified for grant of pension under the rules of Government of Punjab and, therefore, the Board was not correct in rejecting the claim of the respondent for inclusion of period of work charged service rendered by him with the State Government for grant of pension, on the ground that service rendered by him in the work charged capacity outside PSEB and in the departments of the State Government was a non-pensionable service.
(Pp. 319, 324, 325)
In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioners as work charged employees for the purpose of qualifying service and for grant of pension. Petition stands disposed of. The State shall comply with this order within a period of eight weeks from today.