Vinod Kumar v. State Of Punjab And ORS





    
      


!

"#$%$ &

'

('

)$& "

*+, ''' $ $ &- )%'

!

+&/

&"

1-% '''%2 &"& %
3

45 3'

.
 * 3
 


 
  

  





 



  
   

 
!

* 3


'8- 9:

"

#

 
$

%


$
&' (




)

 


%


 

 
* 


 



$+





 ---
/0
1!2


* 
$$
* 

+
*



 -"4
/0
1&2
% +
 

5
$6




*
/ 2



3

.
+ 



)


 



 



7 $+
8 *
% 


"

".(&

#1 
# 


% 
*  
 +
 

* 

 
% ".,(
% 



9 
% !- "..!


 +1 $

$



%

 


 +1 $


 
 
"- "...

 



%
*$ + 

% ", ---
% 

 




 $

,
+ 

 
% 

* 
% $$

%
% :
$*%


%
* 

 

# 
 


 




 


$+


$+
 
 
+

#



$
 

$* $

 
"

-"3
/0
132

 
% 
$



% 
* 



 
#  

$
81 "((1 -"3
%
% 




  !"

-"3
/0
142
%









$ 

 



 
"

-"3
/0
132
+  *

 ;*

0$+


$+
%


) $ 



+




 
"

-"3
% 



 

$ 



<
 -"4
/0
1&2
$*
 



$

 


3

.
+ 


=

%


!

> 
$




 





1 

7 $+
8 *

"

".(&

% 


9 
%
!- "..!


%;

 $+
% * 
$$



 
 

%;
$$



 :




+ 
---
=


 


  $





 


$

,
+ 
 

9 



% 




+
 1 


$
 

 



%

:
% ", ---


% 

 
%;
 *



% 

  

 

+

 


* 



=


 

 $
 

 $+
% *
 



 
*$ :

 
", ---
 



*

$ 
$

 

1 

$$* $
 +


$  

$
"3


"&




) 


 +

 
  +




)




$  $



 
$ 
$ 


*

7  ?


@
 

 

           


 
$ 
$
*


 !


 +


$ 
$




%$ *


$+
 
( -"&

 
 

$*
% 
$ $+
 

% 


*$ :



 


 
% 


? 

7
/?972

 $ 
#
?97


*
 
!- -4 -"!
*$ :

 
 !",
 $+
% *
%;

43
%;
 *
$+
% -"

-( -"!
% $$$


A $ 
A

*$ 


 




A
A $ 

*$ 
$+
 



 
B







*
 $*

 
 

 $




*$ :
 

!,
 $+
% *

,
%;
 *
$+
/$*
 2
=

 
 
 



%
*$+
 

 



+
$$%*





;

 *
$ 


 +

 $





)



 
$ 
$


 




* *

  $

$

$



&

#





$* 



 
 $ $
8

"((

-"3
%
% 



 !"

-"3/0
142

 
%




 

9
9
 -"4/0
1&2
<

* 

$ 




* 

 

3
+ 

.

+ 
 

$


$ 
+


 
 


% 
$


%;*

@8;
*
C$+D


 *
 


 
$
 
+



 

$

$


1 




$

$

 
$+
$+
$*





 

 

4 4

---1 --"

 ---/0
1!2

 



 +

&
$+
$*


%
*
*$ :

* 



* 

 


%
% 



"&


 


 
%
*$

 

(

# Full Bench of this Court has already dealt with this issue in case titled as "Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others"1988(1) RSJ 433, in which it has been held 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. 14095*BRI (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 service would be deemed to have been regularised. Once the service of a work charged employee have been regularised, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the Pensionary bene@ts 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 strike at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation of equality. Even the temporary or oBciating service under the State Government had 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 classi@cation which is sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who started as work*charged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work*charged employee have been regularised, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for these 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."

,

)

*

7 
?



$
@




 



$


+





%


%;
 * 
* 
*$ 
 +
 
 A$+

 
% :
#
%

 
$$%


 

 5%;
 *

6
% 
$


$


$

% *




)

*
$



",


 $



6
 
/

)
%


 
 
 


 
*$ + 

$

9

 ---
/0
1!2
  
 ;
+

$



 
!
 









*

/0
1&2
*
$$* $
 +
 +

$

$





)

$*

 
*


%$
* %

 



%
 


$


 $+







 ---
/0
1!2

$ $

$$
*



+
 *
$$
 
$*

 
@8;1 *D


A $+*
 
 $
$




 

 

  

 


$* $

""

*$+


%


$$%


* 
 
3 -"4
/0
1&2



#
1





 $$ 

$ 





  
 



%








 
+



=% 


%$

$

 A $
$
$+





+ 
 $+
*
 $*


%

)
 

 +


$ 
% 
$ 


 
 $$
 +

E
&F


$$

  
 $
 +

8* 3
:



'

('



8
 ;*' 
 G
 8


$
 G