JUDGMENT :

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.

CM-1280-CWP-2025

1. This application has been filed for recalling the order dated 14.10.2024, whereby the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. Notice of the application.

3. Mr. T.P.S Chawla, Sr. DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant-respondent and states that he has no objection to this course of action. For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed.

4. Main case is taken up for hearing today itself.

CM-1282-CWP-2025

1. This is an application for impleading the LRs of petitioner (since deceased) in the present writ petition.

2. In view of the contents mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The LRs of petitioner are impleaded as party to the present petition only for the purpose of prosecuting the present case.

3. Registry is directed to make necessary changes in the memo of parties by impleading the LRs of the petitioner as party to the present petition.

CM-1281-1283-CWP-2024

This is an application for placing on record amended memo of parties and exemption from filing certified and typed copies of the same.

Keeping in view the contents mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed. Amended memo of parties is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

Exempted from filing certified and typed copies.

CWP No. 3807 of 1998 and CWP No. 15629 of 1999

1. Present set of two writ petitions involve common question of law in the context of common set of facts and thus they are being decided by a common order.

2. In the present set of two petitions, the grievance being raised by the petitioners is that the work charge service rendered by the petitioners has not been taken into account for the grant of pensionary benefits.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 3807 of 1998. The petitioner was initially appointed as Silt Observer on 01.10.1981 but as the post of Silt Observer was abolished w.e.f. 01.12.1985, the petitioner was re-designated as Head Laboratory Attendant from the said date on which post, the petitioner continued working.

4. As per the averments made in the petition, the regular pay scale was being given to the petitioner and the pay scale of the petitioner was also revised w.e.f 01.01.1986 and the service which the petitioner had rendered on work charge basis starting from 01.10.1981 onwards was treated as a valid service for the grant of proficiency step up of his pay on completion of 8 years of service while working on the post of Head Laboratory Attendant. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner was given the benefit of leave encashment as well as gratuity but was denied the regular pension admissible to him on the ground that till the date, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, he was working on the work-charged basis and his services are never regularised. The said action of the respondents declining the benefit of pension to the petitioner has been challenged in the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is to be deemed regular employee keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had more than 10 years of service to his credit at the time when he attained the age of superannuation hence, the respondents are under obligation to grant the petitioner the benefit of pension.

5. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply wherein, the only objection of the respondents is that the petitioner(s) retired as a work-charged employee and not as a regular incumbent hence, they are not entitled for the grant of pension.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present set of cases with their able assistance.

7. The only question which has been raised in the present set of petitions is whether the petitioner(s) are to be treated as deemed regular employees so as to be entitled for the grant of pension or not. It is a conceded position that the petitioner(s) initia