HUKAM CHAND Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, UHBVNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, prayer of the petitioner is that the daily wage service, w.e.f. October, 1981 to February, 1987, and thereafter the work charge service, w.e.f. April 1987 to the year 1997, rendered by him with the respondent-Department, have not been taken into account as qualifying services for computing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner by the respondents, which act of the respondents is totally contrary to the rules governing the service of the petitioner as well as the settled principles of law.

(2.) As per the averments made in the present petition, the petitioner initially joined the respondent-Department on daily wage basis in October, 1981 and he continued working as such till February, 1987. Thereafter in April, 1987, he was brought on work charge service by the respondent Department and he worked as such till the year 1997, when services of the petitioner were regularized as an Assistant Lineman in March, 1997 by the respondent-Department. The petitioner continued working as such till 31/3/2013, on which date he attained the age of superannuation and got retired.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that while computing his pensionary benefits, the respondents only considered the regular service rendered by him as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits, which act of the respondents is totally arbitrary and contrary to the rules governing the services of the petitioner, coupled with the settled principles of law, and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to grant the benefit of total length of service rendered by the petitioner, i.e. starting from October, 1981 till 31/3/2013, to be taken into account as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits.