Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 600 (HP)

Bhola Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-09-15

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Petitioners have approached this Court praying therein for following main relief(s): "That the respondents may be ordered to take into account the work charge service rendered by the petitioners for the purpose of qualifying service an the petitioners may be granted pension from the due date with all the benefits incidental thereof.. 2. Precise question for adjudication in the case at hand is "whether the work charge service rendered by the petitioner followed by regular appointment is to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits or not?" 3. Petitioners, who were engaged on daily wage basis with effect from 1.1.1993 were regularized with effect from 5.9.2003 as per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyay's case. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were also granted work charge status with effect from 1.1.2002 but since their work charge service has not been taken into consideration for the purpose of qualifying service, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the relief(s) as reproduced herein above. 4. By now, it is well settled that services rendered in the capacity of work charged employee followed by regular appointment, are to be counted as component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. Needless to say, executive instructions issued by Finance Department, Himachal Pradesh, to the contrary are not relevant in view of the decision rendered by this Court in Skukru Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, CWP No. 6167 of 2017, decided on 6.3.2013. Leaving everything aside, judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Keshar Chand vs. State of Punjab, (1988) 94 PunLR 223 , has also dealt with identical issue and aforesaid judgment stands upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Other vs. Sh. Matwar Singh & Another, CWP No. 2384 of 2018, decided on 18.12.2018 has also taken same view hold therein as under: "3. It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Matwar Singh & Another, CWP No. 2384 of 2018, decided on 18.12.2018 has also taken same view hold therein as under: "3. It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Executive instructions, if any, issued by the Finance Department to the contrary, are liable to be ignored/struck down, in the light of view taken by this Court in CWP No.6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided rt o on 6th March, 2013. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Keshar Chand vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary P.W.D. B & R Chandigarh and others, (1988) 94 PunLR 223 , also dealt with an identical issue where Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules excluded the work charge service for the purpose of qualifying service. Setting aside the said Rule being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it was held that the work charge service followed by regular appointment will count towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The aforesaid view was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court." 6. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to take into account services rendered by the petitioners on work charge basis for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits and grant them all benefits incidental thereto. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.