Managing Director, Uhbvnl And ORS v. Ratan Lal
!
!"#$%&"'
()
&"+, ,,--#..
%+ (#"+/+ %
) .
,,#+-& *# % #+#"0#* & 1 2, 2, "& &/ $#* & 1 3, 2, -.& *#* & 1
4, 2,
1
5) ,
'
,
,
,%& ,
, & .
,
, /
&
& , ,
! "-
,
,
# "- $$ "1 00"
& %
&
5& .
& , &
,
! "-
,
6 '
,
# "-
,
$$ "1 00"
, 7
,
$3 "1 00"
4
"# $"
4
& % , 8 & ,
9 4
, ,
, ,
4
!
:
% '
, &
&
, # ;
, ,
%
-
/ % '
,
& , 8, % 7
/
& & %<
4
,
=
> . '
!"# !$
% &' ')$ '*+,,!"#
&-./' wherein it was held that the period of service spent by an employee on work charged service rendered before regularization, is liable to be taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "19. In the light of the above, let us examine the validity of rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. This rule says that the period of service in a work-charged establishment shall not be taken into account in calculating the qualifying service. After the services of a work-charged employee have been regularised he becomes a public servant. The service is under the Government and is paid by it. This is what was precisely stated in the Industrial Award dated June 1, 1972, between the workmen and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D.
(B. & R), Establishment Branch, Punjab, Patiala, which was published in the Government Gazette dated July 14, 1972. Even otherwise. the matter was settled by the Punjab Government Memo No. 14095BRI(3)-72/5383 dated 6th February, 1973(Annexure P7) where it was stated that all those work charged employees who had put in ten years of service or more as on 15th August, 1972, their services would be deemed to have been regularised. Once the services of a work-charged employee have been regularised, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under Rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the protection of equal laws for all persons similarly situated.
Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation equality.
6 officiating service under the State Government has. to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work-charged establishment before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who eligible for pension and those who started work-charged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is based on any intelligible criteria and, before, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a workcharged employee have n regularised, he is a public servant like other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for se reasons the provisions of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
9.
Reference at this stage can further be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2018 (1) SCT 283, wherein it has been held that period of service rendered on work charge basis by employee should be counted for the purpose of computation of "qualifying service" for grant of pension. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
! " #$%
& ' () ! (*+(
, - ' ( .
.
) / ) ' ( # (
, - ' ( .
.
)+ ( ) ( )0
2
0 ' ( -
1
+
2 )
13 , - ' ( .
.
)+
+ ! " #$%
& ' ( )
! (
! (+4
4 4+*5 4
( 0 )* + +*5 (##677%3&
8! 1$ 1 %19#9& : )) "#$ * 42
4 $ ; (0 ! "$9 ) !
( < *
+ ! " #$%
&' ) ! 0 ( = 0+
+ +*5 (
( 42
4
! " #$%
&' () ! ( ( ( )
% &+
+>
* +*5
42
4
? +
( .
)
"
; ,
% ;
& &
,
&
*
&
)+
&
3, 2,
@ ;
A B A ( A