IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 19441 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : 23.10.2009
Dewana
... PETITIONER
Versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner has retired as Assistant Lineman from the
services of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred
to as `the respondent Nigam’). In the present petition, he is claiming for
counting of his work charge service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
The petitioner is also claiming grant of increments after his completing 8/18
years of service, higher standard scale, revision of his pensionary benefits
and arrears of pension, after adding his work charge service period.
During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioner states
that she confines the prayer only to the counting of the work charge service
of the petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefits, and for the
remaining benefits, the petitioner will approach the concerned authorities.
CWP No. 19441 of 2008 -2-
The respondent Nigam has not counted the said service on the
ground that in spite of the instructions issued vide circulars dated 6.8.1993
and 9.8.1994, the petitioner did not exercise the option within the stipulated
period. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that he was not
aware of the aforesaid instructions, as the same were not got noted from
him. This issue has been considered and decided by a Division Bench of
this Court in CWP No. 8573 of 2004, titled as Sh. Bharpoor Singh (Retired
A.F.M.) versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others,
decided on 16.9.2005, while observing as under :
“It has been categorically pleaded by the petitioner that
being an illiterate person and working in the field he did not
have any knowledge about the instruction dated 6.8.1993
(Annexure P-1). Nothing has been brought on record by the
respondents that the aforesaid instructions were got noted from
the petitioner by any official/officer of the respondent-
Corporation. As per para 4 of the instructions dated 6.8.1993
(Annexure P-1), the instructions had to be got noted from all
the employees and receipt of the letter had to be acknowledged,
but no such acknowledgment has been placed on the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice that the
issue involved in the present writ petition has been specifically
dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lilu
Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others, C.W.P. No. 2476 of
1994, decided on 9.10.1997. A copy of the said judgment has
been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure A-1. On
perusal of the judgment in Lilu Ram’s case (supra), we are
satisfied that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by that
CWP No. 19441 of 2008 -3-judgment.”
In view of the said observations, rejection of the claim of the employee for
not counting the work charge service was set aside. Dakshin Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam Ltd. challenged the said decision of the Division Bench, by
filing SLP (Civil) No. 7284 of 2006, which was taken up with Civil Appeal
No. 4903 of 2009 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 23708 of 2005), titled as
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others Versus Bachan Singh, and
has now been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while observing as
under :
“In view of the law as has been articulated in a large
number of cases where this court has observed that any
discriminatory action on the part of the Government would be
liable to be struck down. Hence, in this case, it would be totally
unreasonable and irrational to deny the respondent the
pensionary benefits under the scheme particularly when the
appellants have failed to produce any record showing that the
instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got
noted in writing by the respondent. In the absence of any such
material it can well be inferred that the respondent had no
knowledge about the options called by the appellants.”
In view of the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the respondents
is not in a position to show any record, whereby the aforesaid instructions
were ever got noted from the petitioner. In view of this conceded factual
position, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to
allow the petitioner to exercise his option in accordance with the
instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994, within a period of three months
CWP No. 19441 of 2008 -4-
from today, and thereafter, the work charge service of the petitioner be
counted towards the pensionary benefits. It is made clear that in terms of the
aforesaid instructions, the petitioner will deposit the employer’s contribution
of EPF with interest, immediately after exercising the option.
October 23, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE