Inclusion of daily wage service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits under Rule 3.17 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970 and the legal principle established in the Full Bench decision in CWP-2864-1983 titled as Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab through The Secretary P.W.D B & R Chandigarh.

ORDER

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral). - In the present writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner is that the daily wage service, which the petitioner had rendered with the respondent-Nigam starting from 23.09.1979 till his services were regularized i.e. 17.10.1990 should be taken into account as qualifying service for computing his pensionary benefits.

2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner initially joined the respondent-Nigam on 23.09.1979. While the petitioner was working, his services were terminated on 20.05.1982 and the said termination was challenged by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal and vide Award dated 24.10.1986, termination of the services of the petitioner was held to be bad and the petitioner was reinstated in service with all back wages. In pursuance to the said award, the petitioner was reinstated in service and ultimately his services were regularized by the respondent-Nigam on 17.10.1990. On 20.09.1992, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Line Man and, thereafter, on 04.03.2010 as Line Man from which post he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once the petitioner had rendered daily wage services starting from 23.09.1979, which services were ultimately regularized by the respondent-Nigam on 17.10.1990, the same needs to be taken into account as a qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, keeping in view the Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970, which have duly been adopted by the respondent-Nigam for regularizing the employees.

4. After notice of motion, the respondent-Nigam have filed reply, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner had only informed the department that he remained engaged as a daily wager from 23.09.1981 to 14.06.1987 and now the claim of the petitioner is from the year 1979, which is incorrect. Learned counsel for the respondent-Nigam submits that there is no record with the respondents to show that petitioner was ever appointed in the year 1979 and he worked on daily wage basis. Learned counsel for the respondent-Nigam further submits that the respondent-Nigam is admitting the claim of the petitioner starting from the year 1987 onwards till the regularization of his services on 17.10.1990.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present case, the petitioner had rendered services on daily wage basis starting from 23.09.1979 onwards till 17.10.1990. Though, in the reply, the respondents are disputing the same but, the document including the award of the competent Court of law, which has been placed on record to show that in fact the petitioner was appointed on 23.09.1979 and his services were terminated in 1982, which termination was held to be bad by the Labour Court vide Award dated 24.10.1986. In the said award, the date of appointment of the petitioner has duly been mentioned as 23.09.1979. That being so, the dispute about the period of daily wage service of the petitioner being raised by the respondent-Nigam cannot be accepted.

7. Further, by an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana dated 24.10.1986, the petitioner was reinstated in service with back wages, meaning thereby, the petitioner had continuity in service and, therefore the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of counting his daily wage service starting from 23.09.1979 till 17.10.1990 as qualifying service for computing his pensionary benefits.

8. There is no dispute that the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970 have been adopted by the respondent-Nigam and according to Rule 3.17 of the said rules, daily wage services rendered by an employee prior to his/her regularization is to be treated as qualifying service for computing his/her pensionary benefits.

9. Not only as per the rule governing the service but, as per the settled principle of