Maman Ram v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.05.2026 Maman Ram ....Petitioner

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to count the daily wage services rendered by the petitioner from 01.05.1979 to 23.06.1987 and work charge service rendered by the petitioner from 24.06.1987 to 04.05.1993 towards total length of service as qualifying service for the purpose of pension/pensionary benefits and retiral benefits. Further, directing the respondent authorities unreleased the entire re-fixed pension and pensionary benefits as per entitlement together with interest @18% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages w.e.f. 01.05.1979 with the respondentDepartment as discernible from Annexure P-1 and he continuously worked without break till 23.06.1987. Thereafter, on the basis of past service rendered

-2by the petitioner, his service was converted to work charge on 24.06.1987 and on the basis of his continuous service without any break on work charge basis, he was regularized on 05.05.1993. Ultimately, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2019. The petitioner made numerous representations for counting of daily wage and work charge service towards qualifying service for pension but no heed was paid. The petitioner ultimately received no response in spite of trying to get information under the Right to Information Act and thus, served a legal notice on 11.05.2026 which remained unheeded. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in 'Kesar Chand Vs. State of Haryana and others' 1988 (2) PLR 223, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in 'Harbans Lal Vs. The State of Punjab and others' 2012 (3) SCT 362 & 'State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan', LPA No.1892 of 2019 and submits that the issue regarding counting of the past service rendered on daily wages and work charge, is no longer res integra. As such, he would be satisfied in case a direction is issued to respondent No.3 to treat the present petition as a comprehensive representation and decide the same in a time bound manner by passing a speaking order.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Advocate puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents and submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition would be considered by passing a speaking order in accordance with the law by respondent No.1. 6.

Therefore, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel

-3for the parties and without commenting further on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of and respondent No.3/competent authority is directed to treat this writ petition as a comprehensive representation and consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the aforementioned judgments and pass a speaking order after affording him an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.3/competent authority. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 29.05.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No