Past services rendered as a temporary worker cannot be counted for pensionary benefits or retirement benefits, and can only be counted from the date of appointment after regularisation.

M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as Electrical Instructor in ITI, Marhaura (Chhapra) Bihar on 11.9.1975 on the basis of daily wage. He was regularly appointed on 14.8.1981. He got superannuated on 30.4.2002. Thereafter he has been paid his retiral benefits only for the period 14.8.1981 to 30.4.2002 and not for the earlier period during which he worked as an Instructor on Daily Wage Basis.

2. Since the earlier services rendered by him from September 1975 to 14.8.1981, the date of his regularisation, had not been counted for his retiral benefits, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to count his services rendered as Electrical Instructor from 11th September, 1975 to 14th August, 1981 also for his pensionary benefits and his retirement benefits. This writ petition was earlier heard by Justice Permod Kohli, the learned Single Judge. The counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the judgment rendered by Justice Tapen Sen, the other learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Laljit Bhuiya v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors., submitted that the said point has been answered in favour of the petitioner in the said decision and as such the same benefit must be given to the petitioner by giving suitable direction to the authorities, the respondents, for counting the said period also for retiral benefits and pensionary benefits.

3. Learned Single Judge, Justice Permod Kohli, while considering the said judgment, found that the ratio decided by Justice Tapen Sen, the other learned Single Judge of this Court to the effect that the earlier services as a temporary worker also has to be counted for retiral benefits or pensionary benefits, taking support from Supreme Court decision in has not been correctly decided. The learned Single Judge, Justice Permod Kohli, further is of the view that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in cited to get support has no application so far as the direct recruitment is concerned, as it relates to the inter se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees and the observations made by the Supreme Court are only in respect of promotees who are appointed to higher post without following the procedure prescribed, and as such these observations have nothing to do with the direct appointments.

4. On the other hand, learned single Judge, Justice Permod Kohli, is of the view that the point in issue is clearly covered under the Supreme Court judgment in K. Madalaimuthu and Anr. v. State of T.N. and Ors. , and as such the correct ratio, as decided by the Supreme Court, is that the past services rendered as temporary basis, cannot be counted for the pensionary benefits or retiral benefits, and the same can be counted only from the date of appointment after regularisation.

5. On the basis of this opinion the learned Single Judge, Justice Permod Kohli, thought it fit to refer the matter to the Division Bench. That is how the matter has come before us.

6. The counsel for the petitioner would reiterate his earlier arguments before this Court, taking support of the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in Laljit Bhuiya v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. rendered on the basis of the Supreme Court Judgment in . We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. As indicated above, this petition has been referred to Division Bench, since according to the learned Single Judge, Justice Permod Kohli has no application in the present facts of the case, because it deals with the inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits and does not deal with the present issue and therefore, the view of justice Tapen Sen is not correct and the point in issue has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in another judgment in K. Madalaimuthu and Anr. v. State of T.N. and Ors. .

7. Before going into the question of applicability of the Supreme Court decision to the present facts of the case, as opined by the learned Si