Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited vs Laxmi

M. Jeyapaul, J.—Defendant-Haryana Power Generation Corporation is the appellant herein.

Suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for declaration as well as for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to accord pensionary benefits considering the service she rendered as Safai Karamchari on contingent basis from 21.4.1981 to 18.7.1997. Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff but the first appellate Court decreed the suit, accepting the plea of the plaintiff.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that she was employed as Sweeper/Safai Karamchari in the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board with effect from 21.4.1981 on contingent basis with a fixed salary of Rs. 265/- per month. She continuously rendered contingent service till her services were regularized on 18.7.1997. Despite fulfilling all the terms and conditions required for regularization, the contingent service which was later on regularized by the defendants was not taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the pension in terms of Rule 3.17A(f) of Punjab CSR Volume II Part II Chapter III.

Defendants contended in their written statement that though the service of the plaintiff put on contingent basis was regularized, she was not entitled to claim that such contingent service should also be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating retiral benefits.

Trial Court held that the contingent service cannot be tagged with regular service for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits but the first appellate Court adverting to the ambit and scope of Rule 3.17A(f) of the Punjab CSR Rules Volume II Chapter III and the decision rendered by this Court, held that the plaintiff was entitled to pension computed on the basis of not only the service rendered as a regular employee but also the service she put in as a contingent employee.

Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant referring to the decision rendered by this Court in Union of India and others v. Brij Lal 2010(3) RSJ 683, submitted that the plaintiff at best would be entitled to claim pensionary benefits on the basis of the regular service and half of the service she put in as a contingent employee.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff would submit that Rule 3.17A(f)(i) of the Punjab CSR Rules Volume II, which envisaged that half of the period of contingent service of an employee alone shall be taken into account for computing the retiral benefits had been struck down as arbitrary and bad in law by this Court. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to claim pensionary benefits based on the entire service she put in as a contingent employee and also as a regular employee.

Rule 3.17A(f)(i) of the above Rules which mandated that half of the period of contingent service put in by an employee should be taken into consideration for calculating pension, was struck down by this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana and others 1997(7) SLR 51. It has been categorically held therein as under:-

" I am also of the opinion that the stipulation in sub-clause(i) of clause(f) of rule 3.17-A that only half the period of service is to be counted as qualifying service is arbitrary and no logic or reason can be spelt out in it. In Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and Others, this Court while considering rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. II which provided that if work-charged service could not be taken into account for he purpose of determining the qualifying service was quashed being arbitrary and unjust. It was observed as under:-

"Once the services of a work-charged employee have been regularised, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the protection of equal laws for all persons similarly situated. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation of equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the State Government has to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work-charged establishment before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who started as work-charged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work-charged employee have been regularised, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for these reasons the provisions of sub-rule(ii) of rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the words "half the period of service of such persons paid from contingency" occurring in sub-clause(ii) of clause(f) of rule 3.17A are bad in law and are accordingly struck down."

Thereafter, this Court followed the above ratio in a subsequent decision in Nathi Ram v. The State of Haryana and another 1998 (4) RSJ 244.

Therefore, in terms of Rule 3.17A(f) Chapter III Volume II of the Punjab CSR Rules and in the background of the above ratio laid down by this Court, the plaintiff who has admittedly put in contingent service is entitled to claim pension on the basis of her entire service she put in not only as a contingent employee but also as a regular employee

There is no dispute to the fact that the plaintiff was taken as a whole-time employee on contingent basis. In other words, she was not a part-time employee. She had admittedly drawn monthly salary as she had been in regular employment without any break. Her employment was later on regularized as she was in the job which was likely to be regularized. In other words, the service put in by the plaintiff satisfies all the conditions found in the afore-said rule. Therefore, the defendants cannot deny the plaintiff of her right to claim pension based upon entire service she put in.

Learned counsel for the defendants submitted a Division Bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Brij Lal, 2010 (3) RSJ 683 wherein it was held that an employee in Railway Service was entitled to pension for regularized period and half of the service he put in as a contingent employee as per Rule 31 of the Railway Services(Pension) Rules, 1993.

In my considered view, the aforesaid decision will have no application to a case which falls within the ambit of Punjab CSR Rules.

I find that the first appellate Court has rightly applied the principles governing the Service Jurisprudence and granted the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. As the legal issue discussed above had already been settled by a Court of law, such an issue cannot be termed as an issue relating to substantial question of law. For all these reasons, I find that there is no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.