IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GANGADHAR SHARMA ......Appellant Vs.

PSEB NOW PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY CORP. LTD. AND ORS.

.....Respondents Reserved on : 14.05.2026 Pronounced on: 15.05.2026 Uploaded on: 22.05.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rajesh Tushar, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Promila Nain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranab Bansal, Advocate for the respondents.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 08.02.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur and judgment and decree dated 16.01.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby, the civil suit as well as the appeal filed by the appellant were dismissed respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the civil suit are that appellant filed civil suit for declaration for fixation of his pay considering his date of appointment as 07.04.1955 and for counting his work charge service for the period from 07.04.1955 to 02.09.1958 for pensionary benefits. He filed civil suit which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.2012. He filed appeal against judgment and decree dated 08.02.2012 which was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2013. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that both the Courts failed to appreciate the evidence (oral as well as documentary) on record and dismissed the civil suit as well as the appeal filed by the appellant. He, therefore, prays that the present regular second appeal be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that both the Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and dismissed the civil suit as well as the appeal filed by the appellant. He, therefore, prays that the present regular second appeal be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

6. The only substantial questions involved in the present appeal are:-

i. Whether service rendered by appellant from 07.04.1955 to

30.05.1991 as work charge would be counted for pensionary benefits.

ii. whether the civil suit filed for pensionary benefits is barred by limitation?

7. The answer to both the questions is no more res integra.

8. Both the Courts have totally ignored the law laid down by this Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary, P.W.D.B. and R., Chandigarh and Ors., 1988 AIR Punjab and Haryana 265, while dismissing the civil suit as well as appeal filed by the appellant. A further perusal of the record shows that both the Courts have held the civil suit to be barred by limitation without appreciating the fact that the cause of pensionary benefits is a recurring cause of action.

9. So far as the first question is concerned, reference at this stage can be made to judgment of Full Bench of this Court in a case of Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary, P.W.D.B and R, Chandigarh and ors, 1988 AIR Punjab and Haryana 265, wherein it was held that the period of service spent by an employee as work charged service rendered before regularization, is liable to be taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

“19. In the light of the above, let us examine the validity of rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. This rule says that the period of service in a work-charged establishment shall not be taken into account in calculating the qualifying service. After the services of a work-charged employee have been regularised he becomes a public servant. The service is under the Government and is p