Ramu Ram v. Haryana Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd And ORS
!"# " $"" ""% " &&&&
%'()*%(+ , )-.//
"- 0#1 /!
2" 2 "2 2
!
"
# $%
&&&&& " 2 "2 2!/3 "14
-
!!
%
'( !!( )
- *
!
!!
%
!
'
) +,- #
'( !!( )
- .
! %
' % /,/0,123 34/-,114 %
+$ ' 5!
!
'
'
+$
%
!%' 6
/,/0,123 7$86
7'$
9
%
#
!!3:/-,114
%
! '
+$ ;
%
'
+$
%
4,/43/,<
!
5!
!
'! #
'
/,/0,123 !!4,/43/,< %
/,/0,123 34/-,114
!%' %
+$
! =
' #
5!
'
! !
%
%
!'!%
%
!%' %
+$
! =
3:/-,114
'
!
')
!
'!
!
+$ % !
%
% !
%
+ $ '
/,/0,123
!
.
' '
!! % '
'
!
.
!
!
. !
!
%
'! ;5
!%%
% '
6
% !%
'
/,/0,123 !!34/-,114 ' #
5!
% !
'
'
+$
( *!! 6
Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others", AIR 1988 Punjab 265, the daily wage service rendered by an employee is liable to be taken into account as a qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits. The fact that even the rules envisage the said benefit in favour of the petitioner is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is being denied the benefits of the daily wage service rendered by him, w.e.f. 01.07.1982 to 23.05.1993, with the respondents on the ground that the documents with regard to the proof of said service were not available with the respondent-Department. But now, once the respondents have conceded the factum that in the seniority list, which was issued by them, the date of appointment of the petitioner on the daily wage basis with the respondent-Department has been described as
01.07.1982, said document is good enough to reckon that the petitioner was appointed with the respondent-Department on daily wage basis on the said date and he continued working as such till the date of regularization of his sevices by the respondent-Department, i.e. 24.05.1993. That being so, claim of the petitioner is squarely covered under the rules governing his service, coupled with the settled principle of law stated hereinbefore in Kesar Chand's case (supra).
In view of the above, the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of daily wage service rendered by the petitioner, w.e.f. 01.07.1982 to 23.05.1993, as a qualifying service and re-compute the pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner along with the consequential benefits including the grant of arrears.
Now, the only question of law which remains to be considered by this Court is whether the petitioner should be granted the benefit of interest on the said delayed release of benefits, with regard to the daily wage service rendered by him, by the respondent-Department or not. In the present case, it is the respondent-Department, which denied the aforesaid legitimate claim of the petitioner by disputing the facts of the case. Before this Court also, though the respondents first disputed the facts of the case but they later on conceded that the petitioner was in fact working with the respondent-Department since 01.07.1982 onwards. That being so, not only the aforesaid legitimate claim of the petitioner was denied by the respondent-Department at the time of his retirement, but even the petitioner was forced to approach this Court and litigate with the respondents for a period of more than six years.
!
! !%! % ' *!!
6 !
(
!"# !
%
'
!
' %
%
!
' '
!
!
!
' ; ! ( +
! "
# $
% & '
(
( (
( (
) In the present case, there was no impediment in releasing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as per his entitlement, but the said benefits were denied by the respondents, and therefore, the delay in
releasing the said benefits to the petitioner is attributable upon the respondents only.
*
+
6
!
! $ %
&'
3/,,3/,4 ! % '
'$
!!'!
!
'
!
(
+ !
!
'
!
( ;
! - ( + '
( *
+ (
$
' ( ' ((
( (
( % &'
((
( (
( ) Hence, along with the arrears, which the respondents will compute, w.e.f. 01.07.1982 to 23.05.1993, under this order, the petitioner is also held entitled for
<>
from
the date the said amount became due till the date of actual payment of the same to the petitioner.
Allowed in the above terms.
Let this order be complied with by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. .//
3" 2 "2 24
!
% ,? #
"
@ 3?
'! @