IQBAL SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count the work charged service rendered by the petitioner before being regularised, as qualifying service for the purposes of pension. A further prayer has been made that the pensionary benefits of the petitioner be determined on the basis of average emoluments for the last 10 months of the pay actually drawn by him i.e. Rs. 6,100/- as C.W.P. No. 7126 of 2004 against Rs. 5,700/-, which has been arrived at by the respondents. Further re-computation of pension and other pensionary benefits has been claimed along with release of the arrears with interest @ 18% per annum.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Supervisor on work charge basis vide appointment letter dated 25.9.1967 (P-1). Subsequent details with regard to the service particulars of the petitioner have been given in para 4 of the writ petition, which shows that w.e.f. 8.4.1969 to 30.12.1971 he worked as T- Mate (W/C) and for the period from 31.12.1971 to 26.9.1973 he was reverted as Mazdoor (W/C). On 26.9.1973 the services of the petitioner were regularised by the respondent Punjab State Electricity Board. He was promoted as Turner w.e.f. 17.2.1976 and as Tech. Gr. I w.e.f. 18.1.1997. On 31.8.2000, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. He was held to be drawing basic pay of Rs. 6,100/- at the time of his superannuation in the scale of Rs. 4150-6750. It has been asserted that for the purposes of calculating gratuity, the respondent Board has taken into consideration the entire service rendered by the petitioner from 8.4.1969 to 31.8.2000. However, the pensionary benefits have been released to the petitioner by reckoning his service from 26.9.1973 to 31.8.2000, meaning thereby only the regular service rendered by him was considered ignoring the work charge service. In this manner, the last pay drawn has been taken to be Rs. 5,700/- instead of Rs. 6,100/-, which was actually drawn by the petitioner. The petitioner has placed reliance on the instructions dated 29.5.1992 (P-7) issued by the respondent Board which prescribes that work charge service rendered prior to 1.1.1986 should be counted as a qualifying service for the purposes of pension. In order to get his due, the petitioner made various representations as detailed in para 7 of the writ petition. However, requests of the petitioner could not bear any fruits.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed. It is appropriate to notice here that the service particulars as mentioned by the petitioner in para 4 of the writ petition have been admitted by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the corresponding para of their written statement. However, respondent No. 5, in his separate written statement has denied the same to the extent that as per the records of the BBMB, the petitioner was appointed as temporary Mazdoor with RE Ganguwal, vide Memo. Dated 15.10.1970 w.e.f. 17.10.1970. Subsequent factual position as detailed by the petitioner has been reiterated by respondent No. 5.