VED PARKASH ARYA Vs. UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHAKTI BHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 is taken on record.

(2.) The petitioner, who had retired as a Divisional Accountant with UHBVN on 31.01.2010 has two grievances that remained unaddressed. One, the work-charge engagement in Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB) has not been counted for the purpose of retiral benefits; and second, there has been a delay in payment of pension for which he is entitled to interest but the same has not been given to him.

(3.) The petitioner s contention is that he was, admittedly, employed on work-charge basis on 20.09.1976 and continued without any break in service till he was offered an appointment as Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) on 20.09.1985. The petitioner would place reliance on the instructions issued by the HSEB on 06.081993 providing for computation of work-charge service for the purpose of pension subject to certain conditions relating to exercise of options within a particular period among other conditions. It is not denied that within the time stipulated, the petitioner had exercised the option on 04.11.1994 claiming that he should be admitted to the pension scheme instead of the Employees Provident Fund scheme.