MILKHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.2.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, by which the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 23.10.1986 passed by the trial court (dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant) was upheld.

(2.) Milkha Singh plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration alleging that he was employed as a work-charge Electrician in July 1957 in the Irrigation Deptt.; that, on the reorganisation of the State of Punjab in the year 1966, he was allocated to the State of Haryana; that the remained on the work-charges establishment for more than 5 years; and this his services, however, were regularised as an Electrician Chargeman only from Nov. 1974, whereas he should have been made regular and confirmed as an Electrician latest by 1962 when he had completed more than 5 years' service. Referring to a case of work-charge employee, the plaintiff-appellant stated that the industrial Tribunal, Punjab, regularised the services of that employee who had put in three years' continuous service, whereas in the present case he had put in about 17 years' continuous service when he was regularised. The plaintiff-appellant further pleaded that he retired from service on 31.12.1982 on attaining the age of superannuation and that, since he had only 8 years' service as a regular Government employee, he was deprived of the pensionary benefits.

(3.) The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was resisted by the defendant-respondent-State, stating that it was not competent as no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff; that no legal right of the plaintiff had been violated; that the plaintiff was not entitled to the pensionary benefits because he had not put in 10 years' qualifying service; and that according to rule 1.132 of the P.W.D. Code, a work-charge employee was not entitled to any pension, leave or any other allowance. On facts, it was stated by the defendant-respondent that the plaintiff was employed as work-charge Electrician in June, 1957; that there was a break in the service of the plaintiff from 1.1.1964 to 9.11.1964, which was concealed by him from the Court; that the plaintiff was reappointed in the State of Punjab on 10.11.1965 and, later on, he was allocated to the State of Haryana; that the plaintiff was promoted as Chargeman (Electrical) on 1.12.167 and his services were regularised with effect from 21.11.1974 along with other similar employees who had completed more than 5 years' continuous service up to 1.4.1972; that it was simultaneously made clear that all the work-charge employees would remain on probation for a period of one year and, thereafter, their services would be regularised after passing specific orders; and that, therefore, the services of the plaintiff were regularised with effect from 21.11.1974 immediately after he completed 5 years' continuous regular service. It was also stated by the defendant-respondent that the Department of Irrigation was not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the award of the Industrial Tribunal was not binding on the Department.