MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed a carpenter on 21.2.1953 in composite State of Punjab on daily wages. On 18.12.1958 the petitioner was appointed against a new post and his seniority was to be reckoned with effect from 21.2.1953 (Annexure P.1). On bifurcation of the States, the petitioner's services were allocated to the State of Haryana. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation in the year 1967 and retired from service with effect from 3.11.1967. Haryana Roadways was not a pensionable department at the time when the petitioner retired from service and it was only 24.9.1982 that the department became pensionable. However, under the scheme dated 24.9.1982 (Annexure P.3) it was to apply to only those employees working in the transport department and who had retired on or after 1.7.1982. The petitioner challenged the scheme dated 24.9.1982 in this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 451 of 1987. The challenge was that there is no rationale in giving this cut off date i.e. 1.7.1982. No written statement was filed in that writ petition and the writ petition was decided in favour of the petitioner on 2.2.1987 whereby Annexure P-3 to the extent that the scheme was to confine to only those employees who had retired on or after 1.7.1982, was struck down. Civil Writ Petition No. 451 of 1987 was decided in the light of decision given by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1646 of 1985. The petitioner, after the decision of CWP No. 451 of 1987, made a representation to the respondents that in the light of decision of CWP No. 451 of 1987, he is entitled to pensionary benefits. Vide letter dated 27.3.1988. Accountant General (A&E), Haryana granted gratuity to the petitioner but pension was not granted. The petitioner has come to this Court by way of this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to give him pensionary benefits.

(2.) The stand of respondent No. 2 i.e. the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Ambala is that the petitioner has worked from 21.2.1953 to 30.11.1958 on daily wages basis and from 1.12.1958 to 3.11.1967 on ad hoc basis. Therefore, the service of the petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefits was counted from the date of his ad hoc appointment and as an ad hoc employee he rendered service only for 8 years 11 months and 2 days. Therefore, he is not eligible for pension as he has not completed the minimum service of 10 years for the purpose as required under rule 6.12(i) of CSR Volume II.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions : one that in the light of decision in CWP No. 451 of 1987, the petitioner is entitled to pension as respondents raised no objection at the time when order Annexure P/3 was quashed to the extent that it limited pension to only those employees who have retired on or after 1.7.1982. His second contention is that under rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, the petitioner is entitled to all the pensionary benefits as temporary or officiating service has to be counted except in the establishments which were non-pensionable. It is not denied that the department became pensionable in the year 1982. He further contended that daily wage earners have not been excluded from granting of pensionary benefits. Under rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, service rendered by the petitioner on daily wage basis has to be counted for the purpose of computing qualified service. His third contention is that admittedly the petitioner is a workman within the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he having continued in service for more than 240 days, he must be taken to have been regularised after the completion of the said period in terms of the judgment in Piara Singh v. State of Haryana, 1988 4 SLR 739. He also laid stress that when he was appointed against a new post, it was made clear that his seniority has to be reckoned with effect from 21.2.1953 and as such he would be deemed to be in continuous regular service with effect from 21.2.1953.