Failure to notify instructions to employees before implementation cannot be used to deny benefits, and ad-hoc service should be counted as qualifying service for computing pensionary benefits as per Rule 3.17 of Punjab Civil Services Rules and settled legal principles.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) - In the present petition, prayer of the petitioner is that the daily wage service, w.e.f. October, 1981 to February, 1987, and thereafter the work charge service, w.e.f. April 1987 to the year 1997, rendered by him with the respondent-Department, have not been taken into account as qualifying services for computing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner by the respondents, which act of the respondents is totally contrary to the rules governing the service of the petitioner as well as the settled principles of law.

2. As per the averments made in the present petition, the petitioner initially joined the respondent-Department on daily wage basis in October, 1981 and he continued working as such till February, 1987. Thereafter in April, 1987, he was brought on work charge service by the respondent Department and he worked as such till the year 1997, when services of the petitioner were regularized as an Assistant Lineman in March, 1997 by the respondent-Department. The petitioner continued working as such till 31.03.2013, on which date he attained the age of superannuation and got retired.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that while computing his pensionary benefits, the respondents only considered the regular service rendered by him as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits, which act of the respondents is totally arbitrary and contrary to the rules governing the services of the petitioner, coupled with the settled principles of law, and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to grant the benefit of total length of service rendered by the petitioner, i.e. starting from October, 1981 till 31.03.2013, to be taken into account as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits.

4. After notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply, wherein it has been conceded by them that the petitioner initially worked from the year 1981 to 1987 on daily wage basis and thereafter, on work charge basis from April, 1987 to the year 1997 with the respondentDepartment, after which, the petitioner's services were regularized by the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the petitioner never raised the claim for calculating the daily wage and work charge services rendered by him to be considered as qualifying services for computing the pensionary benefits, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner in this regard.

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

7. The Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, adopted by State of Haryana, which rules are also adopted by the respondents, clearly states that the daily wage service/work charge service rendered by an employee prior to the regularization of his/her service is to be taken into account as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits. Not only this, even as per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court passed in the case of 'Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others', AIR 1988 Punjab 265, the ad-hoc service/daily wage service/work charge service rendered by an employee, prior to the regularization of his/her service, is liable to be taken into account as a qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits.

8. Once the daily wage service and work charge service rendered by the petitioner with the respondent-Department are not in dispute, there is no valid justification with the respondents to deny the petitioner's claim for treating the aforesaid services as qualifying services for computing the pensionary benefits. The only reason stated by the respondents to decline the said benefit to the petitioner is that the petitioner never opted for the grant of said benefit.

9. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that any such instructions were ever brought to the notice of the petitioner that he was required to opt for the grant of benefit of the daily wage and work ch