IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Managing Director, UHBVNL and ors. ..Appellants Versus Ratan Lal ..Respondent Reserved on: 05.05.2026 Pronounced on: 08.05.2026 Uploaded on: 13.05.2026 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: Ms. Manreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocates for the appellants.

* * * * *

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J.

1. The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 14.05.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal, as well as judgment and decree dated 12.01.2026 passed by learned District Judge, Karnal, whereby, civil suit filed by the respondent was decreed in his favour and appeal filed by the appellants, was dismissed respectively.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that civil suit was filed by the respondent seeking decree for declaration alongwith consequential relief of mandatory injunction to the effect that the respondent is entitled to count the entire service rendered by him as daily wager w.e.f 1979 to

14.06.1987 and as work charge T mate w.e.f 15.06.1987 to 22.07.1990 for the purpose of calculation of pension and pensionary benefits.

3. The respondent joined Haryana State Electricity Board as Daily wager employee in 1979 and worked as such up to 14.06.1987. Thereafter, he was appointed as Work Charge T Mate w.e.f 15.06.1987 and worked as such up to 22.07.1990. After this, he was regularized as work mate, vide order dated 23.07.1990. He retired as line man on 31.05.2012. He represented the appellants for grant of pensionary benefits by counting his work charge/daily wage service rendered by him in the appellants- department. He then filed civil suit, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated 14.05.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal. Thereafter the appellants filed appeal against the same which was dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 12.01.2026 passed by learned District Judge, Karnal. Hence the present appeal.

ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that both the Courts failed to consider the evidence on record and wrongly decreed the civil suit filed by the respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. She, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the whole record of the case with her able assistance.

6. The sole question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the service rendered by a person on daily wage/work charge basis prior to regularization, is to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits?

7. The answer to the same is no more res integra.

8. 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 on 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 paid by it. This is what was precisely stated in the Industrial Award dated June 1, 1972, between the workmen and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (B. & R), Establishment Branch, Punjab, Patiala, which was published in the Government Gazet