ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Punjab State Electricity Board (`Board' in short) is before us in this appeal, inter alia calling in question the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Writ Petition No. 7326 of 2005 dated 12.7.2007.

3 The facts in nutshell are, the respondent was appointed as security guard on ad hoc basis on 27.01.1976 and his services were regularized with effect from 9.8.1978. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2000. On his retirement, the respondent has received all the pensionary benefits.

4. The Board has issued a circular dated 23.01.2001, giving certain benefit of "ad hoc service" to Board employees. In short, in the circular, it is stated, that, the period of ad hoc service would be counted towards retirement benefit on regularization, provided the employees fulfil certain conditions. A clarification is also issued by the Board, by Memo No. 41614/659 dated 14.2.2001, clarifying the circular dated 23.1.2001.

5. To take benefit of the circular issued by the Board, the respondent had made a request to the Board to count his ad hoc service in the Board before regularization of his service for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits. The said claim is rejected by the Board vide its order dated 5.10.2004. This issue was agitated by the respondent by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The court has granted relief to the respondent. The findings and the conclusions reached therein is the subject matter of this civil appeal.

6. The learned Counsel for the Board would contend, that, the High Court was not correct in relying on the full bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and Ors., since in that decision the court was concerned with the issue, the effect of regularization of service of work charge employee for the purpose of pensionary benefits which are available to the other public servants. It is further contended, that, the Circular/Memo dated 23.1.2001 and subsequent Circular/Memo dated 14.2.2001 are only prospective and the benefit cannot be granted to such of those employees who have retired from service prior to the issuance of Circular/Memo dated 23.1.2001 and clarificatory Memo dated 14.2.2001. It is further contended that the reliance placed by the respondent on Clause 7 of the Finance Circular No. 73/89 issued by the Board is misplaced, since that circular was made applicable to work-charge employees only. It is also contended, that, since the respondent has not questioned the validity or otherwise of the Circular/Memo dated 23.1.2001 and 14.2.2001, he cannot take the benefit of those circulars, since they are prospective and issued after respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent-employee would contend that there is no essential difference between a `work charge employee' and an employee appointed on ad hoc basis and, therefore, the High Court was justified in relying on the full bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand's case and directing the Board to reconsider the case of the respondent in the light of the said decision.

8. The issue that requires our consideration and decision is, whether the High Court was justified in relying on the decision of Kesar Chand's case to annul the order passed by the Board dated 5.10.2004 and secondly, whether the ad hoc service of an employee of the Board before regularization of his service requires to be counted while calculating the pensionary benefits of the respondent.

9. To resolve the controversy, we require to notice Memo/Circulars issued by the Board dated 23.1.2001 and 14.2.2001. They are:

(a) Memo No. 21064/21114/ENG-27 (44) LCL 75

Dated 23.1.2001

Subject: COUNTING OF ADHOC SERVICE FOR PENSIONARY BENEFITS ONLY

The matter regarding benefit of Adhoc Service has been under the