BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Balbir Singh (petitioner) seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to count his work charge service, rendered by him with effect from 19.7.1962 to 26.4.1983 towards pensionary benefits and grant of consequential arrears along with interest.

(2.) On 19.7.1962, the petitioner was appointed as a Turner in Bhakra Dam Project (in short 'BDP') in Nangal Workshop Division. He worked there upto 21.9.1967. After the completion of the project, his services were retrenched, vide discharge certificate (Annexure-P-1). On the completion of BDP, the petitioner was appointed in another project by respondent No. 1, namely, Beas Satluj Link Project (in short 'BSLP') after 1 of 9 four days, where the petitioner joined on 26.9.1967 and worked there as a Turner upto 29.1.1982. He was retrenched, vide discharge certificate (Annexure-P-2). The projects, namely, BDP and BSLP were merged into Bhakra Beas Management Board-respondent No. 2 herein (in short 'BBMB') under the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 (in short 'the Act of 1966'), in terms of Sec. 80 (6) of the Act of 1966. Part-VIII of the Act of 1966 deals with Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects (in short 'BNBP'). Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Chargeman Special Grade-II in work charge capacity in BBMB, Nangal Township, vide letter dated 26.4.1983 (Annexure-P-4). In the discharge certificate from BSLP (Annexure-P-2), the petitioner was wrongly mentioned to have voluntary resigned from service with effect from 29.1.1982. The petitioner had approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court I, Chandigarh, which, vide award dated 4.9.2008 (Annexure-P-5), held that the petitioner was retrenched from the said project. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.8.1999 and was retired from the service of BBMB. The petitioner approached this Court in the year 2012 i.e. after more than 12 years of his retirement, seeking the present relief. The petitioner also claims that under Rule 4.23 of Chapter-IV, Section-V, Volume-2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, interruption between two spells of service rendered under the State Government shall be treated automatically condoned, except when the interruption is caused by resignation, termination or dismissal from service etc.

(3.) Respondents No. 2 to 4, in the written statement, took the stand that the writ petition is hopelessly time barred. The petitioner retired from service on 31.8.1999 and received the pensionary benefits from BBMB. 2 of 9 Now, after more than 12 years, he is disputing the pensionary benefits. The period of service by the petitioner in BDP in Nangal Workshop is not denied, but it is stated that he had voluntarily tendered his resignation. Thereafter, he was appointed in BSLP at Sunder Nagar on 26.9.1967 and worked there till 19.7.1982 as a Turner and thereafter on completion of the project and after receiving the retrenchment compensation, he had resigned from the service. The services of the petitioner with the BBMB, as alleged by him, is not denied. It is stated that Rule 4.23 of Chapter-IV, Section-V, Volume-2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules does not cover the case of the petitioner since he had resigned from the said post and he had received the retrenchment compensation. It is further stated that as per Rule 3.17-A (1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, all the services rendered on establishment, interrupted or continuous, shall be counted as qualifying service, which preceding the resignation, except where such resignation is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority. It goes to show that where the resignation has been submitted with proper permission to take another appointment whether temporary or permanent under the Government, the services preceding the resignation shall be counted for computation of pensionary benefits. It was further stated that the writ petition i.e. CWP No. 17807 of 1996, titled as Ram Kishan and others Vs. PSEB , was filed in this Court, claiming the benefit of work charge service rendered by them in BCB for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 23.4.1999 (Annexure-R-1), held that the employees who have received the retrenchment compensation when their work charge service came to an end are not entitled to get the work charge service 3 of 9 counted towards pension and pensionary benefits. The SLPs No. 7002- 7003 of 2000, filed against the said judgment was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 4.6.2001 (Annexure-R-2), passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India, on the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the LPA is pending before the High Court. Therefore, it was stated that the work charge service of the petitioner in BDP and BSLP is not to be counted for grant of pensionary benefits. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned State counsel, the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 and have also carefully gone through the file. The services claimed by the petitioner is as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_115_LAWS(P&H)8_2016.HTML</FRM> The discharge certificate (Annexure-P-1) from BDP shows that the petitioner resigned from the said project on alternative appointment in BSL Project. The discharge certificate from BSLP (Annexure-P-2) shows that the reason for discharge was voluntary resignation with effect from 29.1.1982.