KEWAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a matador driver with the respondents. He served from September 23, 1983, to June 30, 1999, on work charge basis. At the end of his tenure, the petitioner requested the respondents to grant him pension. His claim was declined by the Accountant-General, Punjab, vide order dated March 12, 1999, on the ground that there is no order of the Punjab Government "to authorise the pensionary benefits to employees whose entire service is work charged. . . . . . . ". The petitioner represented. His claim was again declined by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, vide order dated February 24, 2000. Copies of the two orders have been produced on record as annexures P-3 and P-6. The petitioner complains that the action is arbitrary. He prays that these orders be quashed and the respondents be directed to first consider his claim for regularisation and then for the grant of pension.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. It has been admitted that the petitioner had joined as a matador driver on September 23, 1983. The appointment was on work charge basis. He had continued to work as such till he attained the age of superannuation. However, the petitioner's services could not regularised "as there was no regular post of matador driver with (the) department till the retirement of the petitioner". Thus, the petitioner had continued to work on work charge basis and he is not entitled to the grant of pension. A separate reply has been filed on behalf of the Accountant- General, Punjab. It has been averred that the petitioner's services were not regularised till the date of his retirement. Thus, no pensionary benefits were allowed to him. Counsel for the parties have been heard.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the post of matador driver has continued to exist in the Department of Forests, at least from September 23, 1983, when the petitioner had joined, to June 30, 1999, when he had retired. Still further, it is the case of the respondents themselves that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, "had repeatedly recommended creation of additional 35 posts of drivers to the Government so that the services of the work charged drivers, including the petitioner, could be regularised". Reference has been specifically made to one of the letters in the written statement. It is, thus, clear that the work was available. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, wanted the Government to sanction the creation of regular posts. Yet, no decision was taken. In the meantime, the petitioner had retired. At the end of his career, the petitioner is left with nothing to fall back upon.