BHAKHRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD Vs. MAHANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.10.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.5.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, I Class (I), Mandi decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the plaintiff).

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that he is entitled to pension and other service benefits payable to a regular employee of the appellant/defendant No. 1 and for perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants (hereafter referred to as D -l to D -4) from with holding the pension and other benefits of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that he was appointed as a fireman in B.S.L. Project with effect from 19.2.1969 and worked as such till 30.9.1974 whereafter he was promoted as Chargeman with effect from 1.10.1974 and worked as such till 29.6.1977 when he was retrenched. He was re -employed as Lineman on 15.12.1984 and his services were regularised with effect from 1.1.1989. The plaintiff opted for pension, CPF Scheme introduced by D -l with effect from 1.1.1989. Because of the conversion in regular industrial service, the conditions of service of the plaintiff also stood changed and he was governed by the Punjab C.S.R. whereunder the plaintiff stood superannuated on completion of 58 years of age instead of 60 years as was settled in his appointment letter dated 14.12.1994. When the plaintiff was called upon to opt for his absorption in the regular service with pensionary benefits in the year 1989, he was not informed that the past service rendered by him in the B.S.L. Project would not be counted. Had he been so informed, he would not have opted for being out of the workcharge cadre. On the strength of his option, he is now being denied pension and other pecuniary benefits to which he would have otherwise been entitled as a workcharge workman. It is further averred that the past service of the plaintiff since 19.2.1969 is required to be counted towards his service and if such service is taken into account, he would have put in more than 17 years of service at the time of superannuation. The plaintiff represented to the defendants to do the needful which was declined. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit. In their written statement they averred that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts of the case inasmuch as the true state of affairs is that service rendered by the plaintiff in B.S.L. Project with effect from 19.2.1969 to 29.6.1977 was in workcharge capacity and thereafter he was retrenched and received all the terminal benefits as admissible. However, the pension scheme was not applicable to such employees. At a later stage, the plaintiff was appointed afresh as employee of D -l in the year 1984 as a fireman on 15.12.1984. He willingly opted for absorption in the regular cadre of BBMB. Thus, having come in the regular cadre of D -l, the services of the plaintiff were governed by the provisions of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, therefore, after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 58 years, the plaintiff was retired from service on 30.11.1993. Thus, having served D -l only for a period of less than ten years, the plaintiff, besides other terminal benefits of service, is entitled to service gratuity instead of pension required by him. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of pensionary benefits. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff has been denied.