Dismissed

Urmila v. Managing Director and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2009CWP/1071/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting a claim for regularization of an employee's work charge status and subsequent pension benefits. The court held that the terminated employee is not entitled to any pension since the termination order was not challenged.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's claim for_quashing of the order rejecting pension benefits is dismissed. No relief granted.

Urmila Vs Managing Director and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.W.P. No.1071 of 2008 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No.1071 of 2008

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 21, 2009

¶5

Urmila wd/o Ishwar Singh

¶6

.....PETITIONER

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Managing Director, HPGCL, Panchkula and another

¶9

....RESPONDENTS

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr.J.K. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Parveen Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶14

The petitioner, who is widow of late Shri Ishwar Singh, an employee of HPGCL, Thermal Power Plant, Panipat, has filed the instant petition seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 12.11.2007 (Annexure P-9), whereby the claim of the petitioner to treat the service of the husband of the petitioner as regular and thereafter to release his retiral benefits and the family pension to the petitioner; has been rejected.

¶15

Shri Ishwar Singh, husband of the petitioner was appointed as T-mate on work charge basis on 9.6.1976. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Fitter, again on work charge basis, on 1.5.1982 in the pay scale of Rs.350-600. Concededly, he continuously worked in the department up to 17.11.1988 only as work charge employee, and up to that date his services

¶16

C.W.P. No.1071 of 2008 -2-

¶17

were not regularized. After the said date he did not attend his duties. It is the case of the petitioner that after the said date the husband of the petitioner had gone missing and his whereabouts were not known to anybody. It is further conceded position that in the year 1992, the husband of the petitioner was charge-sheeted on the ground of his absence from duty since 1.12.1988 and ultimately vide order dated 6.4.1993 his services were terminated.

¶18

On 19.3.2004 the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that the petitioner was entitled for the retiral benefits of her husband being her legal representative. In the suit, it was pleaded that as per the instructions of the respondents, the services of the husband of the petitioner should have been brought on regular establishment, but illegally his services were not brought on the regular establishment. Therefore, by treating her husband as a regular employee on the date he disappeared, the petitioner should be given the service benefits of her husband. The said suit was contested and the same was dismissed by the Civil Court on 2.12.2005 while coming to the conclusion that no retiral benefits or ex-gratia compensation can be given to the legal representatives of the terminated employee. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said suit the termination order of the husband of the petitioner was not challenged.

¶19

Against the above-said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Panipat, which was also dismissed on 28.2.2006. Against the said order, the petitioner filed RSA No.536 of 2007. The said appeal was dismissed as not pressed. However, while dismissing the appeal as not pressed, it was observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants, if so desired, would knock at

¶20

C.W.P. No.1071 of 2008 -3-

¶21

the door of the competent authority by way of representation to be filed by them within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, and the competent authority shall dispose of the said representation within three months thereafter. It was mentioned that the competent authority will consider the claim of the petitioner in view of the notification dated 10.10.1988, which was not produced by the petitioner before the Court.

¶22

In view of the above-said order, the petitioner filed a representation which has been rejected vide impugned order on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was working on work charge basis, and till the time he attended the office, his services were never regularized. Thereafter his services were terminated. Since the husband of the petitioner only worked on work charge basis, the petitioner is not entitled to any pension or pensionary benefits and employment under ex-gratia Scheme.

¶23

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

¶24

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, it has been disclosed that in view of the office order dated 7.8.1985, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P1 regarding implementation of recruitment and promotion policy in Thermal Organization and adoption of new staffing pattern, it was decided that the work charge workers may be adjusted in the equivalent rank subject to their general suitability to the post. For that purpose, a Screening Committee was constituted which considered the claim of all the work charge employees in the meeting held on 27.9.1985. The work charge employees, who were working in the pay scale of Rs.400-700 were made regular. Since the husband of the petitioner was working as Assistant Fitter on work charge basis in the pay scale of Rs.350-600, his claim for regularization was not

¶25

C.W.P. No.1071 of 2008 -4-

¶26

considered. Thereafter, the meeting of the Screening Committee was again held on 27.9.1989. Since the husband of the petitioner was missing from 17.11.1988, he did not appear before the Screening Committee, therefore, his claim could not be considered. Thereafter the services of the husband of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 6.4.1993 on account of his absence from duty since 1.12.1988.

¶27

It is admitted position that neither in the civil suit nor before this Court the petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated 6.4.1993 whereby the services of the husband of the petitioner were terminated. A terminated employee or legal heir of such employee is not entitled for any pension etc. or ex-gratia employment. Even if for the sake of arguments, the services of the husband of the petitioner are treated as regular in terms of the notification dated 10.10.1988, the petitioner cannot be granted any pension etc. as regular employee because since 1.12.1988 the husband of the petitioner remained absent from duty and on that account his services were terminated, and the said order has not been challenged.

¶28

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶29

April 21, 2009 vkg

¶30

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

Urmila v. Managing Director and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila v. Managing Director and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bhatia Brothers Vs Haryana Urban Devp. Corpn.

Indrawati Jain Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Deep Chand Garg Vs State of Punjab

Satwinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab (Already Decided)

Bhajan Singh and Others Vs UOI and Others