NAZIR KHAN Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who were working as Work Charge Employees in the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'RSEB'). The only grievances raised by the petitioners is that the services rendered by them as Work Charge Employee should be counted as qualifying service for the purposes of pension after their retirement.

(2.) MR . Sanjeev Johari, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Annex. P/1 dated 27.01.1993, a decision taken by the RSEB itself that such period rendered by work charge employees shall be counted for the purpose of computing the qualifying service for the purposes of pension once they are regularized in the services of the respondent -RSEB. The orders Annex. P/3 dated 18.12.1996 and Annex. P/4 dated 27.07.1997, also reiterate the said position. However, vide the office order (Annex. P/6) dated 23.08.1997, the respondents have stated that the past cases already decided otherwise than in accordance with the Circular/Order dated 24.07.1997 shall not be re -opened and only pending cases as on 24.07.1997 shall be considered in accordance with this circular, therefore, they were not given the benefit of counting of services rendered by them as Work Charge Employee and the said period was not treated as qualifying service for the purposes of pension; and being aggrieved by this action, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that there is no justifiable reason for denying the benefit of that period to the present petitioners merely because they retired prior to 24.07.1997. Once the respondent -RSEB had taken a policy decision to count the period of service rendered by the Work Charge Employees as qualifying service for the purposes of pension for all of its employees, there was no justification for creating two classes about the past cases already decided prior to 24.07.1997 and only to deal with the pending cases in accordance with said beneficial Circular read with previous Circulars. It was merely a fortuitous circumstances, administrative in character, as to which cases had remained pending on 24.07.1997, and which cases have already been decided. Therefore, no such classification could have been made in the impugned order (Annex. P/6) dated 23.08.1997 to this extent, the grievances raised against the exception clause in the said order, appears to be justified.