- (1.) The petitioner was appointed on work-charge basis in the Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB' - for short) now known as Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited, Panipat. He worked on work-charge basis for the period from 8.12.1970 to 11.10.1974 at Xen, Central Store, HSEB, Panipat Thermal Plant. The work-charge service of the petitioner was regularized and he worked on regular basis from 21.9.1981 to 30.6.2003 at Panipat Thermal Plant. He retired from service on 30.6.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the grievances of the petitioner are that the work-charge service rendered by him has not been counted towards his pensionary benefits in terms of the letter dated 6.8.1993 (Annexure P.1) and clarification dated 9.8.1994 (Annexure - P.2) issued by the HSEB. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been given the benefit of the pensionary scheme in terms of the aforesaid instructions on the ground that he did not exercise the requisite option within time and in any case he may be allowed to exercise his option for the grant of pensionary benefits scheme in terms of circular dated 6.8.1993 (Annexure - P.1) which was clarified by circular dated 9.8.1994 (Annexure - P.2) even though he had not done so earlier. The other grievances of the petitioner are that the work-charge period of service rendered by him has not counted for the purpose of granting him additional increment on completion of 8 and 18 years of service and also for granting him higher standard pay scale on completion of 10 and 20 years of service in accordance with the HSEB circular dated 12.11.2002 (Annexure P.6) which has adopted the Haryana Government circular dated 15.3.2002 (Annexure P.7). The further claim of the petitioner is for the grant of benefit of Assured Career Progression ('ACP' - for short) Scheme benefit in accordance with the circular dated 27.2.1998 (Annexure P.8) by counting his work-charge service. Consequently, a prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 18.5.2004 (Annexure P.10) passed by the Chief Engineer (O&M), Panipat Thermal Power Station (P.T.P.S.), Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited, Panipat (respondent No. 3) whereby his representation dated 14.10.2003 for the grant of aforesaid reliefs has been rejected.
(2.) On notice, written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of causes of action inasmuch as the petitioner has prayed for the grant of pensionary benefits, increments after 8 and 18 years of service, higher standard pay scale after 10 and 20 years of service and the benefit of ACP after taking into consideration the period of his work-charge service. These benefits, it is stated, are based on independent instructions and, therefore, a single writ petition for these benefits is not maintainable. The petitioner was a member of the Employees Provident Fund ('EPF' - for short) Scheme and he had started deducting his contributions w.e.f. 11.10.1974. The instructions dated 6.8.1993 (Annexure P.1), it is stated, were given wide publicity and circulated in each and every office and were brought to the notice of each and every employee including the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not give his option in terms of the said circular. Another opportunity was given in terms of the subsequent instructions (Annexure P.2). However, the petitioner again did not exercise the necessary option. It is stated that the petitioner is, therefore, estopped from claiming pensionary benefits as he at the time of retirement accepted and withdrew the benefit of EPF without any protest or objection. It is further stated that the petitioner is also not entitled to the benefit of his work-charge service for additional increments on completion of 8 and 18 years of service or the benefit of higher standard pay scale after 10 and 20 years of service in terms of the Government letter dated 12.11.2002 (Annexure P.6). As regards the grant of additional increment after 8 and 18 years of service, it is stated that the instructions dated 12.11.2002 (Annexure P.6) were issued while the petitioner was in service and he has raised this claim after his retirement from service on 30.6.2003. Insofar as the grant of higher standard pay scale after 10 and 20 years of service is concerned, it is submitted that the said benefit is regulated by the HSEB instructions dated 10.5.1994, according to which higher standard pay scale is admissible to an employee who does not get promotion. The petitioner, in fact, was appointed on work-charge basis on 8.12.1970 as T-Mate and he was regularized on 22.9.1981 as Work Mistri. The latter post was designated as Helper Grade-1 on 15.1.1986 and he was promoted as Technician Grade-II w.e.f. 6.10.1988. The pay scale of Technician Grade-!I on 6.10.1988 was Rs. 950-1500 and the same was revised to Rs. 1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.5.1990. As the petitioner was already getting the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 which is equivalent to the next higher standard pay scale in terms of the instructions dated 10.5.1994, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of higher standard pay scale. As regards the grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP) grade, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of work-charge service for the grant of ACP in terms of the instructions dated 27.2.1998 (Annexure - P.8). The said instructions stipulate that only regular satisfactory service is to be counted. The first ACP scale of the petitioner comes to Rs. 3050-4500 and the second ACP comes to Rs. 3050-5325. However, the petitioner was already getting the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 in January 1996 on account of revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 for the post of Technician Grade-II which was higher in the first ACP, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of ACP. As such, it is prayed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the circular dated 6.8.1993 (Annexure P.1) and the clarification dated 9.8.1994 (Annexure - P.2) were not got noted from the petitioner even though it is specifically provided therein that these were to be got noted. Therefore, the action of the respondents in declining the benefit of pensionary scheme on the plea that he had not opted for the same within the period of three months from the date of regularization or from the date of the issuance of the circulars Annexures P.1 and P.2 is clearly erroneous. It is further contended that the action of the respondents not to grant the benefit of 8 and 18 years of service by taking into account the work-charge service of the petitioner and non-grant of higher standard pay scale after 10 and 20 years of service is also clearly erroneous and the order dated 18.5.2004 (Annexure - P. 10) passed by respondent No. 3 in this regard is also unsustainable. It is further contended that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefits of ACP Scheme by taking into account the ad hoc service rendered by him,;