JAGDISH RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I shall decide the above mentioned two petitions. Since common questions of law and facts are involved therein, both are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from CWP No. 10757 of 1999 titled as Jagdish Ram v. The State of Punjab and others.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Driver at Bhakhra Dam Project, Nangal,District Ropar on 27.09.1957. He was discharged from service on account of absence from duty vide Annexure P-1 dated 05.11.1962. He was again appointed as Driller at Bhakhra Sutlej Link Project at Sunder Nagar, A.R.H.P., Unit II on 30.06.1964. He was again discharged from service on account of reduction in strength vide Annexure P-2 dated 31.05.1980. He was again selected and appointed as Driller and he joined his duties on 19.07.1985 at Power Plant Civil Exc.Division, RSD, Shahpurkandi, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. Thereafter, he retired from service at the age of 60 years on 31.10.1997. The claim in the petition is that by policy dated 07.05.1993, reiterated by instructions dated 01.02.1995 the petitioner was entitled for regularisation but that benefit was illegally denied to him. It is further pleaded that had the petitioner been regularised at that time he would have been entitled to pension as per his service.

(3.) In reply the entitlement of the petitioner for pension has been disputed on the ground that various policies referred to in the writ petition for regularisation do not help the petitioner since in all of them one mandatory condition was that the employee should opt for the same and at no stage the petitioner ever opted. There are other grounds also for disputing the entitlement of the petitioner under the policies of regularisation.