Thuru Ram & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. G. S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for Punjab State Electricity Board. ... Rajesh Bindal J. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present petition is pressed only qua petitioner No. 29, namely, Dwarka Nath son of Nikka Ram. The prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation after completion of five years' service on work-charged basis. The petition had been filed on behalf of 135 petitioners, who had been working in different capacities on work-charged basis. For the purpose of seeking regularisation, reliance was placed upon various policies issued by the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and another, AIR 2010 SC 1467, submitted that work-charged service rendered by an employee is to be considered while computing qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. He submitted that though petitioner No. 29 has already retired, but still as a result of acceptance of the present petition, the petitioner will get C.W.P. No. 5443 of 1986 [ 2] pensionary benefits. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after the filing of present petition, the petitioner had filed another writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 3757 of 1999 praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents for regularisation of service and also grant of pensionary and other incidental benefits. The writ petition was disposed of by this court on 18.3.1999 (Annexure A-4) with a direction to the respondents therein for taking a decision on the notice issued by the petitioner in that regard. After consideration of the claim of the petitioner, the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short, `the Board') vide order dated

16.7.1999 (Annexure A-2) rejected the same. The petitioner had even filed COCP No. 790 of 2002, which was dismissed on 8.7.2003 (Annexure A-5). The submission was that considering the fact that the petitioner had filed another writ petition claiming the same relief and in terms of order passed therein, the respondent-Board had passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner way back on 16.7.1999. The petitioner did not impugn that order till date, accordingly the present petition does not survive and deserves to be dismissed as such. He further submitted that judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Narata Singh's case (supra) has no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case considering the fact that work-charged service was directed to be counted for the purpose of computation of qualifying service for pension in a case where at the time of retirement, the employee was in regular service. It was not a case for regularisation of service. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The primary relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition is for regularisation of service. In support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to cite any policy or judgment to support his claim. The claim was sought to be based on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Narata Singh's case (supra). However, the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case considering that the petitioner in the present case was not a regular employee at the time of his retirement from service, whereas in the case before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, work- charged service was directed to be counted towards qualifying service for C.W.P. No. 5443 of 1986 [ 3] the purpose of pension in a case where the employee was initially working on work-charged basis, but later on had been regularised. Even otherwise, for the claim to that effect the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 3757 of 1999, which was disposed of on 18.3.1999 (Annexure A-4) and in terms of the directions contained therein, the respondent-Board had even passed an order on 16.7.1999 (Annexure A-2) rejecting the claim of the petitioner, but the petitioner never thought of challenging the same. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

8.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge