- (1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner claims for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant revised pension to the petitioner after counting the period of work-charge service rendered by him w.e.f. 10.12.1974 to 01.06.1981, with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The petitioner joined the services of the respondents as T-Mate on work-charge basis on 10.12.1974. On 1.6.1981, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Line Man on regular basis. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2005, but the pensionary benefits were computed for the period 23 years and 8 months i.e., the period of regular service, though the petitioner has worked for 30 years, 1 month and 21 days including the work-charge service. The petitioner relies upon Rule 3.17 (A) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), as applicable to the State of Haryana. Such Rule provides that the entire service rendered by an employee as work-charge is to be reckoned towards retiral benefits. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits by taking into consideration the period of work charge service, rendered by him with the respondents. Apart from Rule 3.17 (A) of the Rules introduced by the State of Haryana, the petitioner also replies upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court, reported as "Kesar Chand Versus State of Punjab and others, AIR 1988 (Pb & Hry)-265".
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after inserting Rule 3.17 (A) in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, a Circular, Annexure P-1, was issued on 6.8.1993 inviting option from the work-charge employees so as to count service rendered by the said workers in work-charge capacity, towards the pensionary benefits. It is contended that such Circular was not brought to the notice of the petitioner and, therefore, he could not exercise option so as to count work-charge service towards pensionary benefits. It is contended that the respondents have admitted the fact that the Circular seeking option was not circulated to the petitioner. In view of the admitted fact that the Circular dated 6.8.1993, seeking option from the work charge employees so as to count work charge period towards pensionary benefits, was not brought to the notice of the petitioner and thus not given him opportunity of such option, therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of pension only on the basis of the fact that he has not opted for counting the work charge period towards pensionary benefits.;