BALWANT SINGH Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was inducted into the service of the Haryana State Electricity Board as an Assistant Foreman on 19.2.1969 on work-charged basis. He continued to discharge his duties as such till 31.5.1989 i.e. the date he attained the age of superannuation. It would be pertinent to mention, that at the time of retirement on 31.5.1989, the petitioner was 60 years of age. In this behalf, it would also be essential to notice, that the employees discharging their duties in a work-charged capacity under the respondent, retire on attaining the age of 60 years, whereas the age of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation for regular employees, is 58 years. It is, therefore, apparent that if the petitioner would have been a regular employee, he would have retired on 31.5.1987 i.e. the date when he would have attained the age of 58 years.

(2.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the petitioner should have been regularised under the policy instructions dated 8.2.1988 (Annexure P-1), wherein qua work-charged staff, it was, inter alia, incorporated as under :-

(3.) It is not possible for me to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The policy instructions dated 8.2.1988, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, entitle the work-charged staff to regularisation with effect from 1.1.1988. As a regular employee, the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years i.e. on 31.5.1987. It is, therefore, apparent that the claim of the petitioner for regularisation could not have been considered by the authorities with effect from 1.1.1988 on account of the fact, that as a regular employee he could have continued in service of the Haryana State Electricity Board only till 31.5.1987. Accordingly, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of merit and is, therefore, hereby declined.