J.M. Panchal, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against judgment dated January 25, 27006 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 694 of 1995 by which the appellants have been directed to count previous service rendered by respondent No. 1, Narata Singh, in the Departments of Punjab State as work charged employee for the purpose of determining qualifying service for pension payable to him as an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short, the 'Board').
(2.) The admitted facts which emerge from the record of the case are as under: The respondent No. 1 worked with Irrigation and Power Department of the State of Punjab on work charged basis from February 1, 1952 to September 18, 1953. From September 25, 1953, he worked as work charged employee with the Bhakra Dam Project and resigned therefrom on January 27, 1962. He thereafter joined the Beas Dam Project on February 1, 1962 and worked at the said project till April 15, 1978 as work charged employee. He was retrenched from the said project with effect from April 15, 1978 and was paid retrenchment compensation of Rs. 11,803.20 and gratuity of Rs. 8559/- by the competent authority of the project. Bhakra Dam Project and Beas Dam Project are under the Department of Irrigation and Power, State of Punjab and, thus, even as per the appellants, the services rendered by the respondent No. 1 as work charged employee in the two projects was, in fact, service under the State of Punjab. The appellant No. 1, i.e., Punjab State Electricity Board is a statutory body constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The respondent No. 1 was employed on work charged basis as a special foreman by the Board as a fresh appointee. He worked in the same capacity from August 6, 1982 to January 5, 1984. With effect from January 6, 1984, he was appointed on regular basis. He retired from the service of the Board with effect from July 31, 1990 on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent No. 1 thereafter moved a representation requesting the Board to grant him pension and other retiral benefits after taking into account the entire service rendered by him on work charged basis under the State Government. By an order dated January 25, 1991, the respondent No. 1 was paid a sum of Rs. 29,250/- being the amount payable to him as death-cum-retirement gratuity. The relevant regulation framed by the Board provides that an employee who has served for a minimum period of qualifying service of 10 years would be entitled to pension. The claim of the Board is that the respondent No. 1 had served the Board for 7 years, 11 months and 25 days including the work charged service in the Board and was, therefore, not qualified for grant of pension. The claim of the respondent No. 1 was that service rendered by him in the State of Punjab as work charged employee should be counted for determining qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Therefore, he instituted C.W.P. No. 10911 of 1991 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking inclusion of work charged service for the purpose of determining qualifying service. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, vide order dated January 28, 1992, allowed the writ petition of the respondent No. 1 and directed the Board to include work charged service rendered by the respondent No. 1 with the State of Punjab for the purpose of determining qualifying service for grant of pension to him. It may be mentioned that the Board had issued a Finance Circular No. 24/92 dated May 29, 1992 deciding to. include the period of work charged service of an employee with the Board for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits as well as for counting the said period for determining qualifying service for grant of pension. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants filed special leave petition (C) No. 7515 of 1992 before this Court. The said petition was allowed by an order dated October 12, 1992 in the following terms: Special Leave granted. Heard counsel on both sides. The question which is required to be considered is in regard to the service rendered by the respondent No. 1 Narata Singh with the Bhakra Management Board and later the Beas Management Board. The question to be considered is whether that service was regulated by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and Gratuity Scheme and whether the respondent No. 1 had already taken benefit thereof. If so, the effect of that benefit received by the respondent No. 1 would have to be considered. It appears that the matter had not been considered from that angle by the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for reconsideration on merit. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- (A.M. Ahmadi) Sd/- (M.M. Punchhi) October 12, 1992 New Delhi. After remand, the case was heard by a learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The learned Single Judge by order dated March, 10, 1995 dismissed the petition filed by the respondent No. 1. Thereupon the respondent No. 1 challenged the said judgment by filing a Letters Patent Appeal No. 674 of 1995. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 1 filed an application on August 27, 2004 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record certain documents in support of his claim that service rendered by him in the State of Punjab should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining qualifying service rendered by him in the Board. The record further shows that he filed another application for bringing on record certain documents in support of his claim. The Division Bench of the High Court noticed that those documents were neither considered by the learned Single Judge nor by the Board and, therefore, the Division Bench, by an order dated August 24, 2005, directed the Board to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 for the grant of pensionary benefits, in the light of new documents filed in the appeal within four months from the date of the order. After passing the said order, the hearing of the appeal was adjourned. Pursuant to the directions given by the High Court, the Board reconsidered the case of the respondent No. 1 for grant of pensionary benefits in the light of the documents produced by him on the record of the appeal and rejected the said claim by a speaking order dated November 16, 2005. The order passed by the Board was produced before the Court hearing LPA No. 674 of 1995. The main ground on which the claim of the respondent No. 1 for grant of pensionary benefits in the light of the new documents was rejected was that the case of the respondent No. 1 was not covered by Regulation Circular No. 54 of 1985 bearing Memo No. 257861/REG.6/Vol.5 dated November 25, 1985 because he had rendered service in the work charged capacity outside the Board, i.e., in the Departments of the State Government, namely, Bhakra Management Board and Beas Management Board and that the said service was a non-pensionable service so far as the State Government was concerned. The Division Bench considered the order dated November 16, 2005 passed by the Board rejecting the claim of the respondent No. 1 as well as Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1988 (5) SLR 27. The Division Bench noticed that the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had struck down Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules which, inter alia, provided that period of service in work charged establishments shall not be counted as qualifying service. After noticing the ratio laid down by the Full Bench, the Division Bench concluded that Rule which excluded the counting of work charged service of an employee whose services were regularized subsequently was bad in law and, therefore, the conclusion of the Board that the case of the respondent No. 1 was not covered by Circular dated November 25, 1985 because services rendered by him as work charged employee in the departments of the State Government was non-pensionable service so far as the Government of Punjab was concerned, was wrong. In view of the said conclusion, the Division Bench by the impugned judgment has allowed the claim of the respondent No. 1 to include work charged service rendered by him with the State of Punjab for grant of pension and directed the Board to count the said period for determining qualifying service for the purpose of pension, giving rise to the instant appeal.
(3.) This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the documents forming part of the appeal. The argument that the respondent No. 1 had served the Board for 7 years, 11 months and 25 days and was, therefore, not qualified for grant of pension as he had not put in minimum qualifying service of 10 years, is devoid of merits. It is true that the Board is a statutory body constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and entitled to make regulations in exercise of power conferred by Section 79 of the said Act. It is also true that the regulation relating to pension requires that an employee of the Board must serve for a minimum period of 10 years so as to claim pensionary benefits and that the total service of the respondent No. 1 with the Board is of 7 years, 11 months and 25 days. However, the claim made by the respondent No. 1 that previous service rendered by him in work charged capacity with the State Government should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining qualifying service for grant of pension is rightly upheld by High Court. It is relevant to notice that there were many cases where employees who had rendered temporary service under the State Government were retrenched but later on had secured employment under the Central Government and claimed pensionary benefits from the Central Government wherefrom eventually they had retired. There were also cases where employees who had rendered temporary service under the Central Government had secured employment under the State Government and were claiming pensionary benefits from the State Government wherefrom eventually they had retired. Therefore, the question of allocation of pensionary liability in respect of temporary service rendered under the Government of India and State Governments was considered by the Central Government. The Central Government consulted the State Governments, and it was decided that as proportionate pensionary liability in respect of temporary service rendered under the Central Government or the State Governments to the extent of such service could have qualified for grant of pension under the Rules of the respective Government, will be shared by the governments concerned on a service share basis, so that the Government servants are allowed the benefit of counting their qualifying service both under the Central Government and the State Governments for grant of pension by the Government from where they eventually retire. This decision was reflected in letter dated March 31, 1982 addressed by the Under Secretary to Government of India to the Secretary to Government of all the States Finance Department (except Government of Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland). The abovementioned policy decision taken by the Central Government was considered by the finance Department of Government of Punjab. It was decided by the Government of Punjab that proportionate pensionary liability in respect of temporary service rendered under the Central Government/State Government to the extent such service could have qualified for grant of pension under the rules of respective Government will be shared by the Government concerned on a service share basis, so that the Government servants are allowed the benefit of counting their qualifying service both under the Central Government and the State Government for grant of pension by the Government from where they eventually retire. This policy decision taken by the Government of Punjab is reflected in a letter dated May 20, 1982 addressed to all the Heads of Departments, Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Commissioner of Divisions, District and Sessions Judge and Deputy Commissioners in the State. The abovementioned policy decisions taken by the Central Government and the Government of Punjab were taken into consideration by the Board which issued a Memo dated November 25, 1985 with reference to the subject of allocation of pensionary liability in respect of temporary service rendered in the Government of India and State Government and adopted the policy decision reflected in the letter dated May 20, 1982 of the Government of Punjab, with effect from March, 31, 1982 as per the instructions and conditions stipulated in the said letter. This is quite evident from Memo No. 257861/8761/REG.6/V.5 dated November 25, 1985 issued by the under Secretary/P &R/ for Secretary, PSEB, Patiala.;