Maha Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others

 


   
   !

"#$ $%&'&()  

"*"+&(,*








$#&#&($- .$-'/'

+#"#$ "-0"(""(1#*$-'

$'2(1$(#'

 ) 3 4 +
  
     


  
  






 




 
   5 -"6 






 


 !


  "# $% "$"%
&
'%


!



  !*)
 !

)


$+ $,

-.,

$% $.

--.






/
)
( 
(

 
 



((

/

0!

 

"-"78&# 9"/-:' +#"#$ "-0"(""(1#*$-'
12'%",

"$ #



$3 "$"$
!


)

4
) 

/

, relevant paras whereof read thus:

5


( )
 


)




) 
 !

)

( 
 


 /
 
 !


!



/
 ( 
/

(
/

6((
7


1


"Kesar Chand v State of Punjab and others", AIR 1988 PUNJAB 265, 8
 
/
(
/

6((
7
 
!
 )


3

+9 :


0 /
1(

;( 
 !


/ 
( 


 !( 



/


 !

 !



( 


 0!




519. 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 workcharged 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 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.

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. Even the temporary or officiating 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 classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who started workcharged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is 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 case 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."

<!

)

Kesar Chand's  
9supra:
 
)

( 
/ 



 
 


-."
((
", $% "$$3


/

 !



!


='! 

 /


 !




-."
((
( "$$3




(
(

( )
>

( !!


 
/

/

6((
7
 
1

Kesar Chand's  
9supra:



 



) !


/ 
( 

 !( ?







/

 !



!


/


 (


/


 !

)
 ( 
/ 
 




-."
((
(
"$$3
  !




 4 
(



 

/
/(
 )
!



( )
(
/

6((
7
 
1

Kesar Chand's  
9supra:

6
 
 
( 
(

) 
 
/
 /
1
 
$+ $

--.
9&
'%:
!
 )


) 
 


)

 
 !
/
 

 

/

 

(  / 






(




-."
((



$"

"$ ,
 
/!

  (

)

( 
/ 



 
".

$3

-."
((
$"

"$ ,


/
 


 !


!

 Keeping in view the above, the present writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to recalculate the pensionary benefits of the peititoner by treating the service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner from 28.03.1982 till 02.12.2015 as a qualifying service and after the re-calculation is done, the petitioner be given the benefits of arrears for which she become entitled under this order.

As the petitioner has been forced to approach this Court for the grant of the relief, which is bvased upon the settled principle of law and existed at the time when the late husband of the petitioner died in December 2015, the petitioner will also be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum. The interest will be

;

calculated from January 2016 onwards till the arrests are released to the petitioner.

Let the computation of the benefits for which the petitioner becomes entitled under this order be done within a period fo two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the amount so calculated, be released to the petitioner within a period of one months thereafter."

Learned State counsel, despite her best efforts, has been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law. 3.

In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Paramjit Kuar (supra).

4.

!
( 9:


(
 9:



  
       %#<$- 5 















 2
 !

@*= 2
 /( @*=