Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ratti Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 December, 2010
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP No.22876/2010 etc. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: 22.12.2010
1.CWP No.22876 of 2010
Ratti Ram ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
2.CWP No.22893 of 2010
Manphool Singh ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd.
...Respondents
3.CWP No.22895 of 2010
Rishal Singh ...Petitioner
VERSUS
DHBVNL and others
...Respondents
4.CWP No.22915 of 2010
Ram Lottan and others ...Petitioners
VERSUS
CWP No.22876/2010 etc. 2
The Managing Director UHBVN & Others
...Respondents
5.CWP No.22887 of 2010
Omkar Singh and others ...Petitioners
VERSUS
DHBVNL and others
...Respondents
6.CWP No.22899 of 2010
Udho Ram ...Petitioner
VERSUS
DHBVNL and others
...Respondents
7.CWP No.22886 of 2010
Chet Ram ...Petitioner
VERSUS
UHBVNL and o thers
...Respondents
8.CWP No.22913 of 2010
Raghbir Singh and another ...Petitioners
VERSUS
HPGCL and others
...Respondents
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
PRESENT: Mr.KL Dhingra, Mr.Naveen Daryal, Mr.Amit Gupta,
Mr.RN Sharma, BK Bagri, Advocate for petitioner(s)
Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana
CWP No.22876/2010 etc. 3
Mr.Mohnish Sharma,Advocate for
Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondents-Nigam
Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion. Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of State of Haryana and Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate appearing for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-Nigam. Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself.
In view of commonality of issues both factual and legal, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
Petitioners were appointed on work charge basis. Their services were regularized. They retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners are claiming pensionary and other retiral benefits by taking into consideration the entire service rendered by them including the work charge period.
It is acceded to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in these petitions is no more res integra having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Others vs. Bachan Singh (Civil Appeal No.4903 of 2009 decided on 30.7.2009. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are entitled to the pensionary benefit by taking into consideration the work charge period. On the basis of the judgment in Bachan Singh (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.17805 of 2009 (Bhunda Ram vs. UHBVNL and others decided on CWP No.22876/2010 etc. 4 25.2.2010) made following directions:-
"(9) For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to exercise his option in terms of the Circular dated 6.8.1993 (Annexure P-1) and/or subsequent circulars dated 9.8.1994 (Annexure P2) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter, the respondent-Corporation shall inform the petitioner the amount of employer's contribution towards EPF to be deposited by him alongwith interest within a period of one month as stipulated under the Instructions and upon receipt thereof, the petitioner shall deposit the same within a period of two months thereafter. After the receipt of amount to be deposited by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to count the work-charged service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 7.11.1968 to 16.1.1976 towards his pensionary benefits which shall accordingly be revised/released at the earliest."
In view of the above, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to count the work charge services of the petitioners towards qualifying service for pensionary/retiral benefits. Let the retiral/pensionary benefits be determined and released accordingly within CWP No.22876/2010 etc. 5 three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by the competent authority.
Copy of this order be placed on record of each concerned file.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 22.12. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 6