A classification that is based on an outdated and discriminatory view of a particular group of employees, and that fails to take into account the fact that these employees perform the same duties and responsibilities as other employees, is arbitrary and unreasonable, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

G.R.MAJITHIA, J.

1. This bunch of writ petitions (C. W. P. Nos. 1499/83, 2864/83, 4125, 4908, 1530, 2319 and 4216 of 1984, 1039, 5141, 41, 3678, 4072, 4712, 4720, 4721, 5584 of 1985 and 1171/87) will be disposed of by a common judgement.

2. We have referred to the facts as given in CWP No. 2864/1983.

3. The factual matrix has little relevance to the issues raised and canvassed at the hearing. However, a brief resume of the facts is necessary to appreciate the points urged.

4. The petitioner joined as a Beldar on August 1, 1951, as a work-charged employee in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathankot. He had a regular service, without any break, from the date of joining the service till the date of his superannuation - October 3, 1977.

5. After his superannuation, the petitioner represented to the respondents for grant of pensionary benefits for the reasons that he had served the department regularly and the post against which he was appointed was a regular post. Even in the Industrial Award dated June 1, 1972 (between the Workman and the Chief Engineer, PWD (B and R), Establishment Branch, Punjab, Patiala) which was published in the Government Gazette dated July 14, 1972, it was held by the Tribunal that the work-charged employees were entitled to be confirmed after five years of service. Therefore, the petitioner contends that he would be deemed to have been confirmed in the year 1956. Respondent No. 1, vide its letter No. 1177 B and R (4)-73 dated 6-2-1973, accorded sanction to the regularisation of all those employees of PWD (Irrigation Branch) working work-charged establishment with effect from 15th August, 1972, who had put in ten years or more service on that date. The petitioner averred, that respondent No. 1 has deprived him of the pensionary benefits on the strength of rule 3.17 and rule 1.2 or 1.4 (iii) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II. The petitioner was a Government servant and was paid from the Government revenue and Government funds, and could not be excluded from the purview of Punjab Civil Service Rules in relation to pension. It is pleaded that the action is totally arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the said rule is discriminatory.

6. The respondents, in their return, substantially admitted all the factual pleas of the petitioner. It was, inter alia, pleaded that the petitioner s qualifying service for pension and gratuity starts from August 15, 1972, i.e., the date from which he is brought on the regular cadre. He did not have a regular service for ten years on the date of his superannuation, i.e. October 31, 1977, thus was not entitled to pensionary benefits. The service in the work-charged establishments does not count for pension under rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume 2.

7. The writ petition came up for hearing before Gokal Chand Mital, J. The learned judge opined that the question whether the benefit of pension and gratuity can he allowed to the work-charged employees only from the date they stand regularised in service or after taking notice of the whole of the service, i.e., from the, date of joining as a work-charged employee is matter no importance and has to be judged on the test of equality provisions under Article 14 of the Constitution. A prayer was made to my Lord, the Chief Justice, for constitution of a larger Bench.

8. The matter was subsequently placed for hearing before Gokal Chand Mital and J.V. Gupta, JJ. The Division Bench was of the prima facie opinion chat the rules regarding the work-charged employees had remained in force for more than half a century and there was no direct Decision of any court on the point, and the decision on the point may have far-reaching implications. It observed that the matter be decided by a Full Bench as the decision would bind the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It is in this manner that the matter has been placed before us.

9. What is p