MANGAT RAM Vs. HARYANA VIDUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has admittedly worked with the respondents as a daily wager from July 18, 1982 till April 29, 1993 when his services were , regularised. There is no break in service. His services were regularised white he was continuing on ad hoc basis. He retired from service, on December 31,1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of. retirement, the petitioner has worked with the respondents for a period of 15 years. He, therefore, claims the pension and other retiral benefits on the basis of aforesaid period of service. The respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner would not be entitled to count the period of daily wages service. This plea is also taken in the written statement filed by respondents.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation AIR 1990 SC 371 : 1990 (1) SCC 361 : 1990-1-LLJ-320, the period spent by the petitioner as a daily wager cannot be excluded from I qualifying service as (sic) it was followed by regular service, which was continuous. Counsel also relied upon single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in C. W. P. No. 2683 of 1989, decided on April 18, 1991.

(3.) After notice to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad's case (supra), the learned single Judge held that as follows: