SAT PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim made in this writ petition is for counting of uninterrupted contractual service (followed by regularization) for the purpose of pension. The petitioner joined as Driver on contractual basis on 18.11.1998. Admittedly he was being paid out of contingencies. Vide order dated 12.5.2004, his services were regularized w.e.f. 26.11.2002. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2010. His claim for pension was rejected and he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 9676 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated 22.5.2012 (Annexure P -5) with the observations that in case the petitioner filed a supplementary representation, the same was to be considered and decided by respondent No. 3 in accordance with law. Thereafter, speaking order was passed whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that only adhoc and daily wage service could be counted for pension but not contract service. Hence the present writ petition.

(2.) IN the written statement filed to the present writ petition also, the same plea has been taken.

(3.) A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that no distinction is drawn between daily wage service/adhoc service or contract service. Rather, the rule is extremely wide in terms since it mentions 'all' service. Consequently, the contention of counsel for the respondents that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab, : 1988 AIR (Punjab) 265, and the decision in Mulakh Raj & another vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another,, 2007(1) SLR 860 are not applicable to the present case, cannot be held to be correct. The basis of the aforesaid decisions would be squarely attracted to the present case and just because those decisions happened to be the decisions relating to daily wage employees would not mean that the benefit thereof would not be applicable to contractual employees especially in view of wide definition of 'service' mentioned in rule 3.17 -A(a) of the said Rules. Consequently, it has to be held that the petitioner is entitled for counting of his contractual service for the purpose of pension, in terms of rule 3.17 -A(a) and (i) quoted above. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to compute the pension of the petitioner and start paying it to him within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. They are also directed to release the arrears within the aforesaid period. The petitioner would further be entitled to interest on the amount of arrears @ 8% pa w.e.f. 1.7.2011 till the date of payment. Since the petitioner had to approach this Court on two occasions to get his pension released, he would also be entitled to costs of Rs. 20,000/ -, which shall also be paid to him within the aforesaid period.