IMPORTANT POINT
Employees regularized from daily wage status are entitled to count prior service for pension eligibility, affirming pension as a right under constitutional law.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since in all these writ petitions, common question of facts and law are involved, therefore, they are being heard and decided by a common judgment and order.

3. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for grant of pension after counting the services rendered by them as daily wagers from the date of their initial appointment.

4. As per the factual matrix, the petitioners were working as a daily wage employee detail whereof has been mentioned in the writ petition i.e. for the periods from 1979 to 2011 and later on regularized during the periods 2009 to 2011. Petitioners have already retired during the years 2014, 2015 and 2016. The State Government had issued one Circular on 18.06.1993 providing therein that the daily rated employees, if appointed prior to 01.08.1985 and have worked regularly for a period of 240 days, they will be given preference in the matter of appointment. Petitioners were working from the period prior to 01.08.1985 and have discharged their duties for a period of 240 days continuously and as such petitioners are entitled to be regularized in service with effect from the date of their initial appointment. However, the respondents have not followed their own Circular dated 18.06.1993 and petitioners’ case for regularization was not considered. Being aggrieved, some of the persons who were not regularized, knocked door of Hon’ble Patna High Court and further before Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 18154 of 1999, in which order was passed issuing directions upon the State to act in pursuance to the Circular dated 18.06.1993 and further to regularize the services of the daily rated employees. When order of the Hon’ble Court was not complied, they moved Contempt case i.e. M.J.C. No. 606 of 2000, which was disposed of on 15.06.2002 on an undertaking given by the Secretary of the Department. However, in spite of undertaking, the order was not complied leading to another writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No. 1213 of 2003. Finally, the case of the petitioners were considered in light of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The order was passed in the year 2011 by which services of the petitioners were taken to regular establishment. Petitioners worked for few years and thereafter approached the respondents by filing representation for grant of pensionary benefits. When no heed was paid, petitioners have been constrained to knock door of this Court.

5. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel representing the petitioners argues that the similar issue was raised before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Harbans Lal Vs. The State of Punjab and others [C.W.P. No. 2371 of 2010] wherein it has been held that the case of daily wagers have to be treated at par with the regular employees once they have been taken into regular establishment and as such, the period rendered by them as daily wagers, have to be calculated for the purpose of deciding the pensionary benefits. The said decision was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 17901 of 2011 and further in Review Petition (C) No. 2038 of 2013 also. In light of said Judgment, the petitioners are entitled for grant of pensionary benefits. Learned counsel further argues that in view of their own Circular dated 18.06.1993, which clearly provides that the daily rated employees, if appointed prior to 01.08.1985 and have worked regularly for a period of 240 days, they will be given preference in the matter of appointment and as such, the petitioners, who had worked for the period prior to 01.08.1985 and continuously discharged their duties for a period of 240 days, are also entitled to be considered in service with effect from the date of their initial appointment for the purpose of entitlement of pensionary benefits. Learned counsel further argues that action of the respondents in not considering case of pe