Sabina, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to count his ad hoc service from 18.8.1973 to 18.3.1982 for the purposes of grant of pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had joined respondent No. 4 -Bhakra Beas Management Board oh 18.8.1973 on ad hoc basis as Line Superintendent on the cadre strength of Punjab State Electricity Board vide Annexure P -1. Services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 4.2.1982 (Annexure P -3). The Electricity Board vide Annexure P -5 had taken a decision that the entire ad hoc service rendered by the Board employees shall be only counted towards retirement benefits on regularization of service. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 'Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2004(4) R.S.J. 71' wherein it was held as under: - - "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered View that the petitioner is entitled to count his ad hoc service w.e.f. 7.3.1972 to 1.1.1980 as qualifying service for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits. The Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand's case (supra) has laid down that once the services have been regularised then there is no reason for not to count the work -charge period or even the ad hoc period as a qualifying service. The Full Bench had struck down Rule 3.17(H) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. 11 which had excluded the counting of work -charge service of an employee who was later on regularised."
(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 4, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner had filed civil suit seeking mandatory injunction that his ad hoc service be counted towards service benefits like seniority, promotion, proficiency step up etc. In the said suit, petitioner had not claimed the relief now sought by him by way of the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. So far as the service tenure of the petitioner is concerned, the same is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner had worked on ad hoc basis from 18.8.1973 to 18.3.1982 when his services were regularized vide Annexure P -3. Petitioner had filed civil suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the respondents to consider the ad hoc service rendered by him for grant of consequential benefits like seniority, promotion, proficiency step up etc. Copy of the plaint has been placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R -4/2. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide Annexure R -4/4 dated 16.1.2006, Petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2006. Thus, the civil suit was filed by the petitioner in the year 1999 when he was still in service and at that time, petitioner had claimed only the service benefits like seniority, promotion, proficiency step up etc. However, the relief now sought by the petitioner could not be claimed by him as he was still in service at that time. In these circumstances, the present writ petition is maintainable as now the petitioner is claiming the relief that his ad hoc service be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits. In view of the judgment of this Court in Balbir Singh's case (supra), this petition is liable to be allowed as the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularization is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purposes of pension and retiral benefits. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to count the ad hoc period of service rendered by the petitioner from 18.8.1973 to 18.3.1982 towards pension and other retiral benefits as qualifying service and grant the benefit to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.;