Punjab-Haryana High Court
Munshi Ram vs Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. And ... on 7 September, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No.9440 of 2010
Date of Decision:7.9.2011
Munshi Ram .... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. J.S. Mannipur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate for the respondents.
****
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner considering him to be a regular employee with deeming fiction on the pattern as was given to the co-employee Shri Behari Parshad, petitioner in CWP No.18896 of 2001.
The petitioner superannuated as a Class IV employee on 31.12.1989 as work-charged employee. He was not granted the pensionary benefits on the ground that he was not considered to be a regular employee. In similar and identical circumstances one Shri Behari Parshad son of Shri Rameshwar Parshad, who retired as Assistant Foreman alongwith the petitioner as work charge was also not granted the benefit of the instructions dated 8.2.1988 and denied the pensionary benefits like him. He filed Civil Writ Petition No.18896 C.W.P No.9440 of 2010 -2- of 2001. The said writ petition was allowed on 20.12.2007 in terms of the decision dated 19.7.2007 rendered in CWP No.5136 of 1992 titled as "Karam Singh v. State of Haryana and others".
It is also not disputed that LPA filed against the order and judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed in C.W.P No.18896 of 2001 (P-2) was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 23.1.2009 (P-4) wherein it was held that Behari Parshad was a regular employee w.e.f. 1.1.1988. The State filed SLP No.12404 of 2009 against the judgment and order dated 23.1.2009 (P-4), which was also dismissed vide order dated 6.7.2009 (P-5).
It is, therefore, not disputed that case of Behari Parshad is fully applicable to the case of the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka and others v. C. Lalitha reported as 2006(2) RSJ page 19 as well as by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Jugal Kishore v. State of Haryana and others reported as 2009(3) SCT page 433.
The only objection taken by the respondent that the petitioner had superannuated on 31.12.1989 and he has filed the present writ petition only after a delay of more than 20 years.
The Division Bench of this Court in case of Jugal Kishore (supra) while deciding the case held in para 5 as under:
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we find that this petition deserves to suceed. We see no force in the contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents that the benefit of higher C.W.P No.9440 of 2010 -3- pay scales of Rs.950-1400 w.e.f 1.1.1986 and Rs.3050-4350 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 could not be given to the petitioner merely on the ground that he has sent the legal notice in the year 2007 after his retirement. It has come on record that similarly situated Book-
Binders have already been granted the aforementioned benefit. Moreover, it was incumbent upon the respondent University to grant the said benefit not only the petitioner but to all such employees once this Court has decided the issue in the case of V. Sreedharan Nair (supra), which has admittedly attained finality. This Court has already held in a number of cases that it is not necessary for every affected person to approach the Court seeking an order in his/her favour once the matter has already been settled by the Court. The benefit of judicial pronouncements after the same attains finality is required to be given automatically to all such persons whose cases are covered by such decision. We, thus, strongly disapprove the stand taken by the respondents and find that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in case of V. Sreedharan Nair (Supra)."
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and order dated 13.5.2010 (P-9) is hereby quashed with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner as regular employee with deeming fiction on the pattern as was given to the co-employee Shri C.W.P No.9440 of 2010 -4- Behari Parshad.
However, taking into account the fact that the present writ petition is filed only in the year 2010, the pension shall be granted and restricted to 38 months prior to the filing of the present writ petition.
7.9.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE