Work charge status followed by regular appointment must be counted as qualifying service for pension benefits, overriding contrary executive instructions.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

CMP No. 2428 of 2025

Allowed and disposed of.

CWP No. 7124 of 2021

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

2. Petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Rural Development Department as Daily Wage Peon in May, 1994. His services were regularized on 22.09.2007. Petitioner instituted Civil Writ Petition No. 755 of 2011, which was disposed of on 25.02.2011. The respondent- Department accordingly extended the benefit of work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 21.04.2002 to 21.09.2007, i.e. the date prior to petitioner’s regularization on 22.09.2007.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the prayers in this petition only to the extent of counting the period of work charge service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of grant of pension. Insofar as this relief is concerned, the stand of the respondents is that the work charge employees of the respondent-Department are not entitled for counting of their work charge service towards pensionable service in view of Finance Department instructions dated 27.01.2016 and 19.09.2018.

4. Respondents’ stand for not counting the work charge service rendered by the petitioner towards pensionary benefits cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this Court as also by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which has been summarized in Naina Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No. 2960 of 2020 decided on 9.8.2024 as under:-

“7. In State of H.P. and others vs. Sukru Ram and another, CMPM No. 423 of 2017, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.5.2017, it was held as under:

“The issue is no longer res integra, which stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and another, (2010) 4 SCC 317, as also earlier decision of this Court in CWP No. 2240 of 2008, titled as The State of H.P. and others v. Sh. Tulsi Ram decided on 31.5.2012, in which learned Single Judge, while holding the service rendered by the writ petitioner on work-charged basis from 1.4.2001 to 2.4.2017 to be counted for the purpose of pension”

8. Later in State of H.P. & others vs. Matwar Singh & another, CWP No. 2384 of 2018 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.12.2018, it was held as under:-

“It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Executive instructions, if any, issued by the Finance Department to the contrary, are liable to be ignored/struck down, in the light of view taken by this Court in CWP No. 6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & others decided on 6th March, 2013. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Keshar Chand vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary P.W.D. B & R Chandigarh and others, (1988) 94(2) PLR 223, also dealt with an identical issue where Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules excluded the work charge service for the purpose of qualifying service. Setting aside the said Rule being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it was held that the work charge service followed by regular appointment will count towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The aforesaid view was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.”

9. Similarly, in CWP No. 2956 of 2019, decided on 13.7.2021, another Division Bench of this Court observed as under:-

“It has also been contended by respondents that the petitioners were granted work charge status only vide order dated 13.10.2015 and the expression used therein was “work charge regularization”. In any case, be it conferment of work charge status or regularization in favour of petitioner vide office order dated 13.10.2015, the same will not affect the outcome of this petition. In view of the law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 238