Jeet Singh Pahal v. H.S.E.B. And ORS.

   


   ! "   
 # 








#$%& #&'()(*+ , Jeet Singh Pahal ... Petitioner

Versus

H.S.E.B. Panchkula and others ... Respondents
 +- .!/  
# ##

Present:

Mr. S.S.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S.Poonia, Advocate, for the respondents.

# ## 0 /
   Application is allowed as prayed for.

Replication is taken on record.

Application disposed of.

$(*
$)& Pleadings on record would indicate that the petitioner had joined the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board as a Helper/T Mate on 13.03.1972 on work charge basis. He continued as such up to 14.01.1986 when his services were regularized. Petitioner retired on 31.12.2004 upon attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. The instant petition was instituted in the year 2013 assailing the order dated 23.12.2010 at Annexure P 9 and in terms of which the claim of the petitioner for the service rendered on work charge basis to count for seniority and other service benefits has been declined.

On 16.09.2013 while issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed by this Court:

                          

   

 

      



          

    



      

     !"#!!$#$ %  

      



        

   

      &  



  

   '      



  

               

            &!($!!$#)* Clearly in terms of the notice of motion order, the scope of the instant petition has been confined to the issue as to whether the work charge service rendered by the petitioner is to count towards his total length of service for computing his pensionary benefits. In response to the petition, a joint written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 has been filed and placed on record. The categoric stand taken in para 27 of the written statement is to the effect that the work charge service rendered by the petitioner has been counted for grant of pensionary benefits. It would be useful to reproduce para 27 of the reply hereunder:


  

        '!+      

     



      

  

          ,

           

     

              

     

   ,                

  

- . /         

        - . /         !!#!# + /0 '!"!"1# 2" - . /

            



          3 

,   3         

/     $#$ # 2!   

    !!#!# +

   

 4)1!      

        

 '        

    ,                       

    !$"$   $!$ # ) 

    & - 6/7&8           $!$ # )  



   

4)1" 4)1)          

5'22$   $9#$!$$(

   

4)1(*

Even a replication has been preferred by the petitioner to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. In the replication, it has not been controverted that pensionary benefits by counting the work charge service rendered by him from the year 1972 to 1986 have not been counted.

In this view of the matter, nothing survives in the petition and no further directions are required to be passed. Petition disposed of.

, # ##  vandana











# √ Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No √ Whether Reportable Yes/No