226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.10.2025 Jagmohan Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the Respondents to grant and release the pensionary and retiral benefits to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of his retirement, treating him as a regular employee by virtue of his continuous service of over 33 years.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner joined the service of the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB), the predecessor of Respondent No.1-Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), as a Work Charge/Store Attendant on a work-charge basis on 03.03.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Regular Lab Attendant vide Memo No.2161-GF-31 dated

31.03.1986 and he assumed the charge of the promoted post on 09.04.1986.

3. On 07.10.1999, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on the ground that the post of Lab Attendant required a minimum qualification of matriculation, which the petitioner did not possess. Subsequently, vide Office Order No.19/C-12 dated 12.05.2000, the petitioner was demoted from the post of Regular Lab Attendant and reverted to his original post of Work Charge Store Attendant. He joined as such on 30.06.2000. Ultimately, the petitioner retired from service after rendering a total service of over 33 years on

30.09.2013.

4. However, upon retirement, the petitioner was denied pension and all other retiral benefits. The petitioner made repeated representations to the authorities for the release of his pensionary benefits, contending that a work- charge employee rendering continuous service for over 33 years is deemed to be regularized and is thus entitled to pension. A detailed representation was filed on 07.07.2017 (Annexure P-2).

5. The respondent authorities corresponded internally regarding the petitioner's claim for pension and ultimately, it was rejected. A legal notice was sent by the petitioner on 30.08.2019 (Annexure P-5), which was replied to by the Respondents on 25/27.09.2019 (Annexure P-6), reiterating the stand that the petitioner was not entitled to pension.

6. The petitioner had initially filed CWP No. 31328 of 2019, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.10.2019 (Annexure P-7) with liberty to file a fresh petition, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

CONTENTIONS

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that having rendered uninterrupted service for over 33 years from 1980 to 2013, the petitioner is deemed to be in regular service as per the settled principles of service jurisprudence. Reliance has been placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab & Ors., 1998 (5) SLR 27; the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2012 (3) SCT 362 and State of Haryana & Ors. v. Jai Bhagwan (LPA No.1892 of 2019); as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors. v. Bachan Singh (Civil Appeal No.4903 of 2009, decided on 11.09.2009). In these decisions, it has been categorically held that work-charge service is to be counted as qualifying service for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits.

8. The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Munsha Singh & Anr. Vs. HSEB & Ors. (CWP No.806 of 1998) decided on 08.11.2011, wherein it was held that an employee working on a work-charge basis for more than 30 years is entitled to all retiral benefits, including pension. Furthermore, it was submitted that even after the demotion of the petitioner, h