DAULAT RAM Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined Haryana State Electricity Board (for short the Board) as a Turner with effect from 1. 11. 1969 on work-charged basis. Board refused to regularise his services though the petitioner completed 20 years 8 months and 30 days service without any break as a work-charged employee. In order to seek regularisation, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 10230 of 1991. The said writ petition was decided by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. V. Gupta, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Mongia on 1. 8. 1990 and the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order within six months from that day and status quo with regard to service of the petitioner was allowed to continue till his representation was decided.

(2.) DESPITE the order of the Division Bench, services of the petitioner were not regularised and he was not allowed to join duty. Consequently, the petitioner filed C. O. C. P. No. 718 of 1990 and the same was decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M S. Liberhan on 9. 11. 1990 on the basis of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondents that they shall decide the case of the petitioner with respect to retrial benefits and deemed date of regularisation in accordance with law within three months.

(3.) IN pursuance of the undertaking given in the above contempt petition, the respondents asked the petitioner to give his option as to whether he wants to retire at the age of 60 or 58 years. He was also informed that his services can be regularised with effect from 1. 1. 1988. In reply to this, the petitioner asked the respondents to regularise his services with effect from 1. 11. 1962, the date he joined service of the Board as work-charged employee. The respondents finally decided the case of the petitioner on 6. 2. 1991 on the basis of the advice of Legal Remembrancer of the Board that the services of the petitioner cannot be regularised with effect from 1. 11. 1969 as there is no such practice prevalent in the Board. Pension was denied to the petitioner on the ground that he was a member of the Employees Provident Scheme and therefore, he is not entitled to pension. Petitioner has impugned the order dated 6. 2. 1991 (Annexure P-1) in this writ petition.