High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 07 P&H CK 0481

Des Raj Chalotra vs The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 29 July 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mahesh Grover, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 22373 of 2010 (O and M)

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 674 words

Mahesh Grover, J.

In this writ petition the petitioner prays that the service rendered by him on ad hoc basis/temporary basis prior to his regularization be considered for the purposes of granting him pensionary benefits. The facts are not disputed that the petitioner had worked with the respondents for intermittent periods on temporary basis from 5.11.1969 till 11.2.1974 before his services were regularized on 12.2.1974.

2.

The claim of the petitioner has been denied on the ground that there were breaks in service and in particular the petitioner was not in service for over a year and therefore such a break cannot be condoned to be counted towards the benefit of service rendered by the petitioner while computing his pensionary benefits.

3.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and noticing the fact that the petitioner had worked intermittently with short breaks with the respondents for more than 4 to 5 years prior to his regularization, I am of the considered opinion that the benefit of previous service rendered by him cannot be denied to him for the purposes of computing his pension, for it is known that normally such an exercise is undertaken by the employer to give breaks in service in order to avoid liability of a regular employee, for which the petitioner cannot be held liable.

4.

There are instructions Annexure P-2 appended to the petition which envisage that the period of service rendered by an employee prior to his regularization has to be considered for the purposes of pensionary benefits unless they are caused by resignation, removal or dismissal or for participation in strike.

5.

It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner was removed from service, the relevant portion of which is extracted here below:-

In the absence of a specific indication to the contrary, it the service records and interruption between, two spells of service rendered under the State Govt. will be treated as automatically condoned and the pre-interruption service treated as qualifying service for pension except where it is otherwise known that the interruption was caused by resignation, dismissal or removal from the service or participation in a strike. The period of interruption itself shall under no circumstances, be reckoned as qualifying service for pension purpose.

6.

For the aforesaid reasons when the petitioner concededly worked with the respondents though intermittently on account of the terms of employment offered by the respondents themselves, I am of the considered opinion that the period of service rendered prior to his regularization needs to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The Division Bench of this Court in a decision rendered in case titled as Hazura Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported as 2003 (4) RSJ 336 has also held that the period of ad hoc/temporary service prior to regularization of service is liable to be counted for pensionary benefits while condoning breaks on account of summer vacation.

7.

The ratio of the aforesaid judgment would not be straightway attracted to the facts of the case considering the fact that in the cited case the break in service was caused on account of summer vacation but at the same time the Court cannot be oblivious to the facts of the instant case that atleast most of the service rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularization was with short breaks offered by the employer himself and therefore that period cannot be excluded for the purpose of computing his retiral benefits. For that purpose the respondents can exclude the period for which petitioner was not in employment for a period of about one year but entire period cannot be excluded when more particularly it is followed by regularization.

8.

Therefore, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the service rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularization for the purpose of computing his pensionary benefits. They would, however, be at liberty to exclude the period of about one year in which there was a long break. Disposed of in above terms.