Daily wage service should be considered as qualifying service for computing pensionary benefits, as established in 'Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others', AIR 1988 Punjab 265.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) - CM-10890-CWP-2022:

1. Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.

CM-10891-CWP-2022:

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the seniority list, being Annexure P-15, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

CWP-22545-2016:

3. In the present petition, prayer of the petitioner is that the daily wage service rendered by him, w.e.f. 01.07.1982 to 23.05.1993, with the respondent-Department be treated as qualifying service, while computing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner by the respondent-Department.

4. As per the averments made in the present petition, the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as Construction Mate on 01.07.1982 under SDO Construction, Sub Division, Gurgaon, and he continued working as such till 24.05.1993, on which date, services of the petitioner were regularised by the respondent-Department. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman and then to the post of Lineman by the respondent-Department, from which post, he retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2016.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present case, the qualifying service, which the respondents are liable to take into account for computing pensionary benefits of the petitioner, is from 01.07.1982 till 31.03.2016, whereas the ten years and ten months service, i.e. from 01.07.1982 to 23.05.1993, which the petitioner had rendered on daily wage basis with the respondent-Department, prior to regularization of his services, has not been taken into account as qualifying service for computing his pensionary benefits.

6. After notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply, wherein they have stated that there was no document available with the respondents to ascertain the fact that whether the petitioner had discharged the duties on daily wage basis with the respondent-Department, prior to regularization of his services, i.e. on 24.05.1993, or not, hence in the absence of any such document, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has controverted the said stand of the respondents by placing on record a seniority list, which the respondent-Department had framed while the petitioner was in service, in which list, the date of appointment of the petitioner with the respondentDepartment has been mentioned as 01.07.1982. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said document cannot be disputed by the respondents, especially when the same has been given to him by the respondents themselves under the Right to Information Act.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents also concedes the aforsaid factum.

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

10. The question of law which now arises before this Court for consideration is whether the daily wage service rendered by the petitioner from 01.07.1982 till 23.05.1993 is to be taken into account as a qualifying service, while computing pensionary benefits of the petitioner by the respondent-Department, or not.

11. 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 daily wage service rendered by an employee is liable to be taken into account as a qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits. The fact that even the rules envisage the said benefit in favour of the petitioner is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.

12. The petitioner is being denied the benefits of the daily wage service rendered by him, w.e.f. 01.07.1982 to 23.05.1993, with the respondents on the ground that the documents with regard to the proof of said service were not available with the respondent-Department. But now, once the respondents have conceded the factum that in the seniority list, which was issued by them, the date of appointment of the petit