Work charge service must be included in qualifying service for pension eligibility, aligning with constitutional principles and judicial precedents.

judgment :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 contained in Annexure P-3 may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant full pension to the petitioner after 01.01.2018 alongwith arrears and interest @ 12% per annum by issuing a writ of mandamus.”

2. There is a very short controversy involved in the present writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as a Daily wager on 26.04.1987. He was conferred work charge status with effect from 14.11.2002. His services were regularized on 09.01.2010 and he retired on 31.05.2012. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure P-3), in terms whereof, he has been denied grant of pension, by assigning the following reasons:-

“3. The record of the case has been perused. The gist of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal No. 6309 of 2017 titled as Sunder Singh Vs the State of HP is as under:

4. "Since the applicants have not rendered the requisite 10 years of service they have been denied pension.

5. Even though strictly construing the Rules, the appellants may not be entitled to pension. However, reading the rules consistent with Articles 14,38 and 39 of the Constitution of India and applying the doctrine of proportionate equality, we are of the view that they are entitled to weightage of service rendered as daily wagers towards regular service e for the purpose of pension.

6. Accordingly, we direct that w.e.f. 01.01.2018, the appellants or other similarly placed Class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they been duly regularized and have been completed total eligible service for more than 10 years. Daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension. If on that basis, their services are more than 8 years but less than 10 years; their service will be reckoned as ten years.

In the instant matter the services of the Petitioner were regularized on 09.01.2010 and he retired from the services of the HPSEB Ltd. on 31.5.2012 after rendition of regular service of 2 years, 4 months and 12 days. In case we grant him the benefit of the service rendered by him on daily rated basis for a period of 12 years in that event aiso by taking 5 years dally rated service equivalent to 1 year regular service, his total regular service works out to 4 years 4 months and 12 days only and consequently the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of pension as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Moreover, the Instructions of the Govt. further provides that the benefit of the grant of pension is not admissible to such of those employees who have been regularized after 15.5.2003 whereafter the pensionary establishment was dispensed with.

IN VIEW OF ABOVE, the claim of the Petitioner being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby rejected as the case of the Petitioner is not similar and akin to the case of Sunder Singh nor it is covered by the instructions issued by the Finance Department.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the present case, there is a glaring mistake committed by the Authority by passing the impugned order and the same is that the work charge service rendered by the petitioner has been totally ignored while considering him for the receipt of pension. By referring to the impugned order, learned counsel submitted that the Authority h