Randhir Singh vs Dhbvnl And Another

Amol Rattan Singh, J

All the cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the Covid-19

pandemic.

CWP no.11292 of 2020

By this petition filed under the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus, directing the respondents to count his entire ‘daily wage service’ w.e.f. 09.10.1980 to 15.05.1993, towards qualifying service for the

purpose of pensionary benefits, in terms of the instructions dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondents, as also subsequent

instructions dated 16.01.2014 (Annexure P-2) and 08.01.2016 (Annexure P-3); and to grant him all the benefits, i.e. all revised pensionary benefits

including gratuity, alongwith interest @ 9.5% per annum.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite representations and a legal notice having been issued to the respondents in respect of the

grievance of the petitioner, neither of them have been decided, with the legal notice (Annexure P-7) being dated 11.09.2019, and with the petitioner

having retired from service on March 31, 2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 3.17A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II (as applicable to the State of Haryana) and

the instructions issued by the respondent-Nigam on 17.12.2013, 16.01.2017 and 08.01.2016 (Annexures P-1 to P-3 respectively), in support of his

contention.

In view of the above instructions, (though this court is also obviously aware of Rules 3.17 and 3.17A(f) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules), this petition

is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to take a decision on the representations and legal notice issued on

behalf of the petitioner, by passing a detailed speaking order, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

While doing so, the competent authority shall also take into consideration the fact that in Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) SCT 795, sub-

rules (i) and (ii) of Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services

Rules, Volume-II (as applicable to the State of Haryana), were struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as

payment of only half the period of service of a person paid from contingency funds, was held to be not a sustainable provision.

The said judgment was thereafter followed by this court in Nathi Ram v. State of Haryana, 1999 (1) SCT 338 and Rama Shankar v. State of Punjab,

2015 (28) SCT 360.

If a completely detailed speaking order has already been passed by the competent authority, then only a short order would now be needed to be

passed, annexing therewith the detailed order already passed (if any).

CWP no.11297 of 2020 and

CWP no.11298 of 2020

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by these petitions, the petitioners are seeking the same relief as has been sought in CWP no.11292 of

2020 (as noticed hereinabove), with the petitioners in these petitions also seeking the benefit of the third ACP scale after counting their period of daily

wages in service.

In view of the above, without making any comment whatsoever on the merits of the case, these petitions are also disposed of in terms of the order

passed in CWP no.11292 of 2020, hereinabove.