- (1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rewari whereby suit filed by plaintiff -Ramesh Chander has been decreed and against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Rewari whereby appeal preferred by defendants -HVPNL and others has been dismissed.
(2.) FOR convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the plaint.
(3.) THE detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. In brief, the facts, as pleaded by the plaintiff, are to the effect that initially the plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to get sanctioned the option/request dated 18.10.2004 in the pension scheme as per defendants' circular issued by the Additional Secretary, HSEB, Panchkula vide memo No.CH -9/Pen/G -43(93) dated 06.08.1993 and CH -80/Pen/G -43(93) dated 09.08.1994 for all benefits mentioned in the above circular by treating his work -charge service as qualifying service for service pension and other retiral benefits and that he is entitled to get his name included in the list of employees working under the pension establishment. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he was initially appointed as Work -Charge T -Mate on 01.12.1976. He remained in service on the Work -Charge post upto 31.07.1985. On 01.08.1985, he was adjusted as LDC on regular post by considering his previous service on work charge basis. He has joined his duties as LDC without any break. The plaintiff was promoted as UDC on 24.08.1993. He was further promoted as Divisional Accountant w.e.f 25.10.2000. He was working on the same post at the time of filing of suit under Audit Party No.1 -AP -83, DHBVNL, Dharuhera. His service record from the date of his initial appointment has remained unblemished. As per the circular of the Board circulated vide memo No.CH -9/Pen/G -43(93) dated 06.08.1993 and CH -80/Pen/G -43 (93) dated 09.08.1994, options were invited from the employees of the Board who were initially appointed on work charge basis and on posts other than pensionable posts to opt the pension scheme and pensionary benefits. Under this circular, the employees were asked and advised to deposit their PF received by them along with interest in 20 monthly equal instalments. The plaintiff had submitted his option for pension and had paid the EPF amount along with interest in lumpsum. After submitting his option, his case remained under process. No action was taken by the competent authority on his option despite repeated requests. The plaintiff is entitled to get his name included in the pension scheme as also for pension and other retiral benefits. He is entitled to get his service rendered as work charge employee reckoned for pension and retiral benefits. His claim was kept pending by the defendants unnecessarily, although, similar benefit had been extended to other employees i.e. Shri R.K.Khudia, S.O. When the plaintiff failed to get the desired result on his representation, he served the defendants with legal notice on 17.10.2002. No action has been taken by the defendants, therefore, suit was filed. Defendants resisted the suit taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, estoppel and concealment of facts. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff was initially appointed as workcharge T -mate on 01.12.1976. It was pleaded that an offer of regular appointment as LDC was given to him in terms of Memo No.7DEC/LDC/M.R.Marit dated 10.07.1985 and another memo No.154/PC - 25 dated 30.07.1985. It was mentioned in that offer that the plaintiff would produce the health and age certificate, at his costs, required for first entry into service from the Chief Medical Officer. He was also informed that if he was at that time an employee with Central/State Govt./Semi Govt./Autonomous body etc., he would have to resign from that post before he was allowed to join the service of the board. He was clearly made to understand that he would be treated as a new entrant in the service of the Board for all intents and purposes. He was to signify his acceptance within seven days. The plaintiff joined as LDC on 01.08.1985. Therefore, he cannot claim that his services were regularized. Regularization, if any, would have been done on the same post of Work -Charge T -mate. It was further pleaded that he was offered appointment as LDC (regularly). It was further pleaded that the plaintiff could have refused to accept the offer and he would have insisted for regularization of his service. It was further pleaded that as per record, he had remained absent for long time during his service as work charge T -Mate. The case for counting of his work charge service period towards pensionary benefits was turned down by Chief Engineer vide Memo No.CH -73/Misc./UDC/M -10 Vol -IV dated 03.08.2001. The plaintiff again made representation against the said order which has also been considered by the appointing authority. It was further pleaded that the said R.K.Khudia was regularized on the same post of work charge T.Mate. Other allegations in plaint were denied. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get sanctioned his applied option/request dated 18.10.1994 in his pension scheme as per departmental circulars dated 06.08.1994 and 09.08.1994 by treating his work charge service as qualifying service for the purpose of all service benefits, pension and retiral benefits as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from this Court. If so, its effect?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 6. Relief.";