Mange Ram vs State of Haryana

Ajay Tewari, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the action of the respondents denying him the benefit of pension. The petitioner was appointed on daily wages in January, 1988. He along with others filed C.W.P. No. 24 of 1990 titled as Charan Singh and others v. State of Haryana which was allowed on 10.05.1993 and services of the petitioner were regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1993. He retired on 31.5.2001. He had 8 years 2 months regular service and 5 years 3 months uninterrupted service on daily wage to his credit. In total he had 13 years and 5 months service to his credit. His case for pension was sent to Accountant General''s Office, Haryana but despite the order having been issued for releasing his pensionary benefits, the same were denied on the ground that he had not completed regular service of 10 years. Hence this petition.

In reply the stand taken by the respondents No. 1 and 2 is that no appointment letter was issued to him. As per them the petitioner worked for 5 years 3 months as a daily wages labourer on muster roll and during this period he did not work against any post and that is why this period is not counted for pensionary purposes. However, the fact of his regularisation was admitted.

As regards the claim of pension, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and Others, wherein it was observed that once the services of work charged employee are regularized, he will be deemed to be entitled to the benefit under Rule 3.17.

Rule 3.17(ii) reads as under:-

If any employee was holding substantively a permanent post on the date of his retirement, his temporary or officiating service under the State Government, followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post, shall count in full as qualifying services except in respect of:-

(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non pensionable establishment;

(ii) periods of services in work-charged establishment; and

(iii) ........................

This Court held as follows:-

It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work charged establishment before his regularization 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 work charged employees and their services regularized subsequently, and the others is based on any intelligible criteria and, before, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work charged employee have been regularized, he is a public servant like other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable 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.

In similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012 (3) S.C.T. 362 : C.W.P. No. 2371 of 2010, C.W.P. No. 22134 of 2010 decided on 31.08.2010 held as follows:-

From the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the entire daily wage service of the petitioner from 1988 till the date of his regularization is to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. He will be deemed to be in govt. service prior to 1.1.2004. The new Re-structured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (Annexure P-1) has been introduced for the new entrants in the Punjab Government Service w.e.f. 01.01.2004, will not be applicable to the petitioner.

Learned AAG could not cite any contrary judgment. Resultantly this petition is allowed. The impugned action of the respondents denying the benefit of pension to the petitioner is set aside. The respondents are directed to count the daily wage service of the petitioner followed by regularisation as qualifying service for the purposes of pension and to release pension and other pensionary benefits which are due to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to claim the same along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date the amount/s fell due till the date of payment.