116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.09.2025 Sube Singh ....Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure P-

12) passed by respondent No.3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner joined on the post of class-IV on daily wages on 18.06.1980. Later on, he was regularized on the post of T-Mate on 01.05.1993 and retired on the post of AFM on 31.05.2020. The primary grievance raised by the petitioner is with regard to counting his past service rendered on daily wages for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits. He further relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in ‘Hari Chand Vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board and others’, 2005 (2) RSJ 373 and submits that the service rendered as daily wager will be counted for pensionary benefits.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner was initially engaged by the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board which was bifurcated in the year 1997 in two entities, namely, UHBVNL and DHBVNL and as such, the petitioner has not informed the respondent-Corporation with regard to his exact engagement on daily wages and the place of his posting. The Pundri and Guhla Division of DHBVNL were not having service record of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to provide any record regarding service rendered by him on daily wages. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner was regularized in the year 1993 only on the basis of his past service rendered by him on daily wages. He further submits that although the policy of 1993 was not adopted by the respondent-Corporation, however, the eligibility for regularization was five years of continuous service and the respondent-Corporation would consider the claim of the petitioner afresh by granting him benefit of five years of service prior to his regularization in the year 1993.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied in case the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to extend him the benefit of five years of his past service rendered by him on daily wages upto the year 1993.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. In view of the discussion above and the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, the present civil writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law in terms of the fact that the petitioner was regularized in the year 1993, by granting him benefit of five years of his past service upto the year 1993 and release the admissible consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

22.09.2025

Neha