Karnataka High Court
B.H. Mahadevappa S/O Late Hanumaiah And ... vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 7 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: ILR2006KAR3405, 2007 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 199 (KAR.) = 2006 (5) AIR KAR R 214, 2006 (5) AIR KAR R 214
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
ORDER Anand Byrareddy, J.
1. The first petitioner joined the services of the respondent during November, 1967 on daily wage basis as a Temporary Time Roll employee (hereinafter referred to as 'the TTR' for brevity). Later he was selected and absorbed into regular service of the respondent as on 30.11.1974. The second petitioner had joined the services of the petitioner during February, 1966 on daily wages as a TTR employee and he was selected and absorbed into regular service in November, 1974. Both the petitioners retired from service on 31.8.1998 and 31.12.1996, respectively. The respondent has been paying pension which was under the provisions of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations' for brevity) and which was fixed reckoning their services only from the date of their absorption. It is the petitioner's case that the first petitioner had rendered total service of seven years in TTR prior to his absorption and similarly, the second petitioner had rendered total service of nine years prior to his absorption as TTR employee. This TTR service rendered by the petitioners were in addition to subsequent service rendered by them. But this term of service was not taken into consideration for the purpose of fixation of pay, pension and other benefits. It is the petitioner's case that Regulation 182 of the Regulations which reads as follows:(sic)
182. The Board may, be general or special order, permit non-pensionable service for performing which an employee is paid from the Board fund, to be treated as service qualifying for pension. In issuing such an order, the Board may specify the method by which the period of qualifying service shall be calculated and may impose any condition which is thinks fit.
Note: (1) Full service rendered by an employee under work charged establishment shall be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
(2) Employees borne on the TTR establishment of the Board subsequently absorbed permanently to the pensionable establishment under the Board are entitled to count one fourth of their service rendered in TTR establishment subject to a maximum of 3 years for the purpose of pensionary benefits."
On 14.02.1986 an amendment was brought about to note (2) of Regulation 182 of the Regulations which reads as under:
Employees borne on the TTR/Work charged establishment of the Board subsequently absorbed permanently to the pensionable establishment under the Board are entitled to count one-fourth of their service rendered in TTR/Work charged establishment subject to maximum of 3 years for the purpose of pensionary benefits, on condition that the Board's contribution towards contributory provident fund, if any, paid should be recovered from the pensionary benefits.
2. Therefore, from a reading of the above Regulation, it is the petitioner's case that the non-pensionary TTR service should be considered as service qualifying for pension, subject only to the condition that the respondents' contribution towards Contributory Provident Fund, if any paid, be recovered from the pensionary benefits. In the instant case, the respondents had not made any contribution. The representations of the petitioners with regard to their claim, was rejected by an endorsement dated 23.11.2000. This was challenged by way of writ petitions before this Court in W.P Nos. 1213 and 1650-1651/01. This Court had allowed the said Writ Petitions by an order dated 28.8.2001 and had directed the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioners in the TTR establishments as qualifying service for pension. The respondents had challenged the same by way of appeals and in the said appeals, this Court, while confirming the order of the Single Judge, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the provisions of Regulation 182 of the Regulations. The respondents having yet again rejected the claim by an endorsement, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. The counsel for the petitioners would contend that the reason assigned for the present rejection is that the petitioners had not completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year during their service on TTR rolls and that the petitioners had not been covered under the Provident Fund Scheme. And, since the petitioners had been appointed as Class III labourers directly from TTR and since they were not actually absorbed, counting their service in TTR, was not beneficial. He would submit that from a reading of Regulation 182(2) of the Regulations, there is no indication that to treat and count the non-pensionary service for qualifying service for pension, the employees have to complete 240 days of service. The Regulation also (sic) not lay down that during the period of daily rated service of an employee, the coverage under the Provident Fund and recovery of contribution is a must. Nor does it lay down that if a TTR employee is selected and appointed, his temporary service cannot be counted as qualifying service. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the respondent are without any basis and would have to be quashed. The direction by a Division Bench of this Court was categorical, to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of Regulation 182 of the Regulations and therefore, the respondents were ill advised to consider their case on (sic) extraneous conditions.
He would place reliance on the judgment in the case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1988(5) SLR 27, which is a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to the effect that once a work charge of the employee has been regularised, there is no logic in depriving him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants. The classification sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who are appointed as work charged employees and who are confirmed in service, are not based on any intelligible criteria and is therefore not sustainable in law. And, accordingly, the rule which was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, was struck down.
4. Reliance is also placed on the case of Sukhi Ram v. The Haryana State Electricity Board 1991(2) SLR 557: which is also in support of the contention that a work charge employee, after having put in more than 16 years of service, on retirement, is entitled to have the work charged service rendered by him as regularised and counted towards grant of pension and other retiral benefits.
5. And on the case of Jai Naran Sharma v. Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Ors. 2002(3) SLR 564, which is also to the same effect as above.
6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent seeks to support the impugned order and has reiterated the reasons put forth in the impugned order in holding that the petitioners are not entitled to any such relief.
7. On these rival contentions, since the respondents were required to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of Regulation 182(2) of the Regulations and since from a reading of the said Regulation it is not apparent that the reasons put forth would be relevant to deny the benefit claimed by the petitioners, the petition is liable to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned endorsements at Annexure "A" relating to the first petitioner and at Annexure "B" relating to the second petitioner are hereby quashed and the respondents are hereby directed to count the TTR service rendered by the petitioners as qualifying service for pension and other benefits under Regulation 182(2) of the Regulations and they shall be paid revised pension, along with arrears with interest at 12% per annum from the date the same fell due, till the date of payment.