2010 Supreme(SC) 187

2010 (2) Supreme 347
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. Panchal and K.S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Narata Singh & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.2384 of 2007
Decided on : 23-02-2010

Headnote:Punjab Civil Services Rules -. Rule 3.17(ii)- Appeal against judgment of High Court by which appellants had been directed to count previous service rendered by respondent No.1, in the Departments of Punjab State as work charged employee for the purpose of determining qualifying service for pension payable to him as an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board - A bare reading of rule 3.17(ii) makes it clear that periods of service in work charged establishments were not counted as qualifying service- Therefore, the work charged employees had challenged validity of said Rule- The matter was considered by Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and it was held that Rule 3.17(ii) was violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India- The Full Bench decision was challenged before Apex Court by filing a special leave petition which was dismissed- Thus, ratio laid down by Full Bench judgment that any rule which excludes the counting of work charged service of an employee whose services had been regularized subsequently, must be held to be bad in law was not disturbed by Apex Court- The distinction made between an employee who was in temporary or officiating service and who was in work charged service as mentioned in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules disappeared when the said rule was struck down by the Full Bench- The effect was that an employee holding substantively a permanent post on date of his retirement was entitled to count in full as qualifying service the periods of service in work charged establishments-In view of this settled position, held that the work charged service rendered by respondent No.1 under the Government of Punjab was qualified for grant of pension under the rules of Government of Punjab and, therefore, Board was not correct in rejecting claim of respondent for inclusion of period of work charged service rendered by him with the State Government for grant of pension, on the ground that service rendered by him in work charged capacity outside PSEB and in the departments of the State Government was a non-pensionable service-Reference to Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as well as the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and speaking order passed by Board rejecting the claim of respondent No.1 showed that High Court had directed the appellants to count the period of service rendered by the respondent No.1 in work charged capacity with State Government for determining qualifying service for purpose of pension- All these directions indicated that High-Court had come to the conclusion that period of service rendered by respondent No.1 in work charged capacity under State Government should be taken into consideration for determining qualifying service for purpose of pension- Non-mention of such direction in the impugned judgment was merely a slip and the appellants could not derive any advantage from this-Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 13 to 15)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeal has been filed against judgment of High Court by which appellants had been directed to count previous service rendered by respondent No.1, in the Departments of Punjab State as work charged employee for the purpose of determining qualifying service for pension payable to him as an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board.

       Findings of the Court :

        A bare reading of rule 3.17(ii) makes it clear that periods of service in work charged establishments were not counted as qualifying service. Therefore, the work charged employees had challenged validity of said Rule. The matter was considered by Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab & Ors. And it was held that Rule 3.17(ii) was violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. The Full Bench decision was challenged before Apex Court by filing a special leave petition which was dismissed. Thus, ratio laid down by Full Bench judgment that any rule which excludes the counting of work charged service of an employee whose services had been regularized subsequently, must be held to be bad in law was not disturbed by Apex Court. The distinction made between an employee who was in temporary or officiating service and who was in work charged service as mentioned in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules disappeared when the said rule was struck down by the Full Bench. The effect was that an employee holding substantively a permanent post on date of his retirement was entitled to count in full as qualifying service the periods of service in work charged establishments.In view of this settled position, held that the work charged service rendered by respondent No.1 under Government of Punjab was qualified for grant of pension under rules of Government of Punjab and, therefore, Board was not correct in rejecting claim of respondent for inclusion of period of work charged service rendered by him with the State Government for grant of pension, on ground that service rendered by him in work charged capacity outside PSEB and in departments of the State Government was a non-pensionable service-Reference to Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as well as the Full Bench decision of High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and speaking order passed by Board rejecting claim of respondent No.1 showed that High Court had directed the appellants to count the period of service rendered by the respondent No.1 in work charged capacity with State Government for determining qualifying service for purpose of pension. Further, the respondent No.1 had been directed to deposit the amount of Employee’s contributory Fund which he had received from appellants along with interest as per directions of Board before pension is released to him. All these directions indicated that HighCourt had come to conclusion that period of service rendered by respondent No.1 in work charged capacity under State Government should be taken into consideration for determining qualifying service for purpose of pension. Non-mention of such direction in the impugned judgment was merely a slip and the appellants could not derive any advantage from this. Appeal having no merit dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.