- (1.) Petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for issuance of direction to respondents for counting his daily wage service for grant of family pension. Petitioner was appointed to the post of Mali cum Chowkidar in the respondent-department on daily wages basis w.e.f 01.10.1994.
(2.) Thereafter the Haryana Government framed a policy dated 01.10.2003 whereby all daily wagers who have completed three years of service on 30.09.2003 were held entitled for regularization (P-3). The case of the petitioner was thus considered for regularization for service and vide office order dated 27.05.2004 (P-2), the services of the petitioner were regularized to the post of Mali-cum-Chowkidar. As per Rule 6.16(1) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, the minimum qualifying period of service for grant of pension is 10 years. Thus, the petitioner who is retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2013 is fully entitled for grant of pension after counting his daily wage service, as the petitioner has worked with the department for 19 years and 5 months i.e w.e.f 01.10.1994 to 31.05.2013. But the respondent-department is not granting pension to the petitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner has served a legal notice dated 14.08.2014 to the respondentdepartment. On notice, a written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 taking a stand that since the petitioner's services were regularized w.e.f 01.10.2003, vide order dated 27.05.2004 in terms of policy of 2003, he is not entitled for grant of pension. Prior to his regularization, he was working as daily wager/casual labour for a period of 10 years and paid from annual maintenance schemes which were sanctioned on year basis.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case is squarely covered by judgment of full bench of this Court in a case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988 AIR(P&H) 265 and a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in a case of Ram Dia and others v. UHBVN Ltd, 2005 4 SCT 387 wherein it has been held that the daily wage and work charge service period prior to regularization is liable to be counted for the purpose of gratuity and pension.;