Maha Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

AMAN CHAUDHARY  , J. (Oral)

¶1Prayer made in the present case is for quashing of order dated

26.04.2024, Annexure P-4 and further directing the respondents to count daily wages/work charge services with effect from 07.05.1985 to 04.08.1998 for the purpose of pensionary benefits which, learned counsel for the petitioner states, is covered on all fours by the judgment in case of Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-4251 of 2016, decided on

12.03.2020, against which no LPA was preferred by the State, relevant paras whereof read thus: "The question of law raised in this writ petition is as to whether the daily wages services, which an employee had rendered is to be treated as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits has already been  settled by the Full Bench of this Court CWP No.23466 of 2024 (O&M) 2 in  "Kesar Chand v State of Punjab and others", AIR 1988 PUNJAB 265, 8t has /een he(d /y the 6u(( 7ench that keepin! in vie) the provisions 3.1+9a: of the Puntia/ 1ivi( Services ;u(es, the dai(y )a!es services rendered /y an emp(oyee prior to the re!u(ar service, is  to /e counted as  ua(ifyin! service for computin! the pensionary /enefits. The re(evant portion of the 0ud!ment is as under:

¶519In 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 workcharged 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 Gazette dated July 14, 1972. Even otherwise. The matter was settled by the Punjab Government Memo No. 14095-BRI (3)- 72/5383 dated 6th February, 1973(Annexure P7) where it was stated that all those work charged employees who had put in ten years of service or more as on 15th August, 1972, their services would be deemed to have been regularised. Once the services of a work charged employee have been regularised, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under Rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must CWP No.23466 of 2024 (O&M) 3 mean the protection of equal laws for all persons similarly situated. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the State Government had to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work-charged establishment before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who started workcharged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore,is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work-charged employee have been regularised, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for case reasons the provisions of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." <eepin! in vie) the  Kesar Chand's case 9supra:, the service )hich the (ate hus/and of the petitioner had rendered from March 1-." ti(( ",.$%."$$3, is to /e treated as a  ua(ifyin! service for computin! the pensionary /enefits. =on'!rant of the /enefit of the  ua(ifyin! service from March, 1-." ti(( Apri(, "$$3 is contrary to the sett(ed princip(e of (a). >nce, the ru(es !overnin! the service have /een interpreted /y the 6u(( 7ench of this 1ourt in Kesar Chand's case 9supra: to the effect that the CWP No.23466 of 2024 (O&M) 4 dai(y   )a!es   service   rendered   /y   an   emp(oyee   prior   to re!u(ari?ation of his services, is to /e treated as a  ua(ifyin! service for computin! the pensionary /enefits, the petitioner is entit(ed for the /enefits of the dai(y )a!es service, )hich her (ate hus/and had rendered from March 1-." ti(( Apri( "$$3 as ua(ifyin! service to compute the pensionary /enefits. 4earned counse( for the respondents has not /een a/(e to sho) anythin! contrary to the (a) sett(ed /y the 6u(( 7ench of this   1ourt   in  Kesar Chand's case   9supra:.   6urther,   the respondents have a(ready imp(emented the A)ard passed /y the 4a/our 1ourt dated $+.$1.1--. 9Anne&ure P'%: accordin! to )hich, the petitioner )as reinstated in service )ith continuity in service, meanin! there/y that it has to /e deemed that the (ate hus/and of the petitioner continued in service uninterrupted(y from March 1-." ti(( he died on $".1"."$1,. That /ein! so, the tota( service )hich the (ate hus/and of the petitioner rendered from "..$3.1-." ti(( $".1"."$1, is to /e taken into account as a ua(ifyin! service for computin! the pensionary /enefits. Keeping in view the above, the present writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to recalculate the pensionary benefits of the peititoner by treating the service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner from 28.03.1982 till 02.12.2015 as a qualifying service and after the re-calculation is done, the petitioner be given the benefits of arrears for which she become entitled under this order. As the petitioner has been forced to approach this Court for the grant of the relief, which is bvased upon the settled principle of law and existed at the time when the late husband of the petitioner died in December 2015, the petitioner will also be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum. The interest will be CWP No.23466 of 2024 (O&M) ; calculated from January 2016 onwards till the arrests are released to the petitioner. Let the computation of the benefits for which the petitioner becomes entitled under this order be done within a period fo two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the amount so calculated, be released to the petitioner within a period of one months thereafter."

". Learned State counsel, despite her best efforts, has been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law.

¶3In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Paramjit Kuar (supra).

¶4Pendin! app(ication9s:, if any, a(so stand9s: disposed of. (AMAN CHAUDHAR ) JUDGE O%#o<$- 045 2024 dinesh 2hether speakin! : @es*=o 2hether reporta/(e : @es*=o

CWP No.23466 of 2024 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 CWP No.23466 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:04.10.2024 Maha Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY **** Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Safia Gupta, AAG, Haryana ****