- (1.) Petitioner, a retired employee of Mukerian Hydel Project, prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider his claim for regularization of his services and for grant of retiral benefits as would accrue to him on becoming regular employee. The facts leading to filing of the petition may briefly be mentioned to get the hang of the issues agitated in the petition.
(2.) The petitioner who claims to have studied upto 10th Class was appointed as a Fitter in Beas Dam Project, Talwara Township on 29.4.1963. On 31.3.1968, he was promoted as Auto Mechanic. However, his services were retrenched on 20.10.1977. Thereafter, the petitioner was again appointed as Auto Mechanic in Mukerian Hydel Project w.e.f. 8.11.1978. As per the appointment letter he was to be borne on work charge establishment and his services were to be governed by Regulations/Standing Orders of Mukerian Hydel Project applicable to the establishment from time to time. The petitioner continued serving the establishment. He has a grievance that his service book was misplaced by the Department which was not reconstructed despite various representations. This, as per the petitioner, resulted in non-fixation of his pay and non- determination of his pensionary benefit. The petitioner further pleads that on account of this only, his case for regularization could not be considered. As per the petitioner, Punjab State Electricity Board has issued instructions through a Memo No. 510/1910/2140 dated 18.8.1994 laying down policy regarding regularization/adjustment of work charge/daily wage/casual employees. Annexure P-5 is the policy containing said instructions. It is also claimed that the Executive Engineer, Mukerian Hydel Construction Division No. 31, Talwara had issued a seniority list of Auto Mechanics, as per which the name of the petitioner appeared at S. No. 1 at that he, as such, was the seniormost Auto mechanic. He was interviewed by the Selection Committee for being appointed as a Regular Auto Mechanic but his name did not appear in the select list though he was fully eligible. The petitioner goes on to add that his name though was ignored but his junior namely Mr. Bhupinder Singh (S. No. 2 at the seniority list) was selected and accordingly regularized on 6.7.1994. This order has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. The petitioner made representation but the same was not considered and thus he retired from the service on 30.8.1998 after rendering 20 years of the service in the Mukerian Hydel Project without being regularized. The petitioner was also not paid any pension, gratuity, provident fund and leave encashment which forced him to serve a legal notice on 2.9.2000, making claim for grant of all the reliefs besides his regularization and payment of retiral benefits. When the respondents did not respond even to the legal notice, the petitioner filed CWP No. 1041 of 2001 which was disposed of on 23.1.2001 with a direction to the Executive Engineer, Mukerian Hydel Project (respondent No. 3) to consider his case and take action in accordance with law within a period of 3 months by passing a reasoned order. The petitioner had to file a contempt petition No. 860 of 2001 when the said directions were not complied within time and then order dated 22.8.2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioner was passed. It is in this background that the petitioner filed the present writ petition impugning the order rejecting his claim for regularization and for non-payment of his retiral benefits.
(3.) While issuing notice of motion, this Court directed that the retiral benefits which are due to the petitioner be brought in form of a cheque on the date fixed. The writ petition was admitted on 16.5.2002, on which date it was also stated before the Court that all the amount due to the petitioner had already been paid. A written statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been filed through Senior Executive Engineer, Mukerian Hydel Channel. It is disclosed in the reply that new service book of the petitioner has since been constructed and all arrears of pay revision has been paid to him as per his service record. The claim of the petitioner for regularization, however, was rejected. In support of its stand the Board has disclosed that the service of the petitioner was not regularized as he had not submitted documents before the Selection Committee at the time of his interview. It is also brought out that the petitioner being work charge employee had retired on attaining the age of 60 years whereas if he had been regularized then he was entitled to serve only upto the age of 58 years. Justifying its action in regularizing the services of a person junior to the petitioner, it is submitted that the services of Bhupinder Singh was regularized as he was having qualification of Matric with I.T.I. and the service of the petitioner was not regularized as he was under Matric. In the reply, however, it has not been disclosed if any minimum qualification was prescribed for regularization. It is also not denied that regularization of the employees was regulated by the policy instructions, Annexure P-5, referred to and relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed replication rebutting the averments made in the reply.;