IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

235 CWP-6295-2020 (O&M)

Date of decision: 03.03.2025 Tarsem Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:8)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:21)

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the impugned letter dated 24.01.2020, whereby respondent No.1 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of retiral benefits on 33 years qualifying service.

2. The petitioner appointed on 14.04.1977 as a Panchayat Secretary on adhoc basis, was regularized in service vide order dated 26.11.1982 and thus, prays for counting of that service rendered prior thereto towards family pension as well as the other retiral benefits and release the same accordingly based on the judgment in Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-2371 of 2010, decided on 31.08.2010, against which SLP was also dismissed, which learned State counsel despite best efforts was unable to controvert regards the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law. The relevant thereof reads thus:-

“9. Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner has further argued that this issue has been considered in a number of judgments while interpreting Rule 3.17 A of the CSR Vol.2. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in case of Kashmir Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2005(4) S.C.T 298 : 2005(4) RSJ 581 and Ram Dia and others v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another, 2005(4) RSJ 689, Hari Chand v. Bhakra Beas Management Board and others, 2005(2) S.C.T. 95 : 2005(2) RSJ 373 and Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2004(3) S.C.T. 698 : 2004(4) RSJ 71. Full Bench while dealing with a similar controversy in the case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) PLR 223 has held as under :-

"Once the services of a work-charged employee have been regularized, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under Rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the protection of equal laws for all persons similarly situated. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation of equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the State Government has to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work-charged established before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for determining the qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who started as work-charged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work charged employee have been regularized, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness and for these reasons the provisions of sub rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

9. The aforesaid view was further reiterated by this Court in the cases of Joginder Singh, Hazura Singh and Nasib Singh (supra). A conjoint reading of the rules, quoted above and the observations of the Full Bench would reveal that it is by now well established that period of service rendered on daily wage/work charges prior to regularisation of services