Allowed

Bhakra Beas Management Board & Ors. v. Joginder Kaur & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Nov 2013LPA/1973/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This letters patent appeal challenged a single judge’s order granting pensionary benefits based on an employee’s work-charge service. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the single judge was correct in relying on Narata Singh. The court distinguished Jagjiwan Ram, finding it dealt with time-bound promotional scales rather than pension benefits. The claim allowing counting of work-charge s

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhakra Beas Management Board & Ors… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.1973 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision : November 25, 2013

¶3

Bhakra Beas Management Board and others versus

¶4

.....Appellants

¶5

Smt.Joginder Kaur and others .....Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶7

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

¶8

Present : Mr.Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶9

-.-

¶10

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

This letters patent appeal impugns the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by learned Single Judge accepting the claim of the deceased-petitioner (husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 to 4) for the counting of work-charge service rendered by him w.e.f. 18.12.1969 to 31.01.1981 towards pensionary benefits.

¶15

The facts are not in dispute. The deceased-petitioner served the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board and Beas Construction Board on work-charge basis during the afore-stated period. He was thereafter retrenched but re-employed again on work-charge basis as Foreman Special in the appellant-Board. He retired from service on 31.03.2004.

¶16

The learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and another versus Narata Singh and another, 2010 (4) SCC 317 to hold that work-charge service rendered by the deceased-petitioner deserves to be counted towards pensionary benefits. The facts of

¶17

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.31 14:33 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶18

LPA No.1973 of 2013 (O&M)

¶19

[2]

¶20

Narata Singh's case (supra), as noticed in para No.2 of the report are somewhat similar to the facts of the case in hand. There also the respondent-employee served on work-charge basis in the Irrigation and Power Department, Punjab before he was retrenched and reemployed in the Bhakra Dam Project. Approving the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand versus State of Punjab and others, 1988 (5) SLR 27, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the claim of retiree for the counting his work-charge service towards retiral benefits.

¶21

It may be useful to take notice at this stage that Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) is the successor of the Beas Management Board by virtue of Section 79(1) of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, which fact has also been explicitly noticed by the Apex Court in para No.7 of its judgment in Jaswant Singh and others versus Union of India and others, 1979(4) SCC 440.

¶22

In all fairness, learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the above-cited decision as well as another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and others versus Jagjiwan Ram and others, 2009 (3) SCC 661 to contend that the work-charge service having been held to be a monthly wages service cannot be counted towards the regular length of service under the service jurisprudence and no direction to count the said service for the pensionary benefits could be issued. We are, however, of the view that the cited decisions are in different context and have no applicability on the issue involved.

¶23

In Jaswant Singh and others' case (supra), the question

¶24

raised was whether the petitioners who were employed by the Beas Construction Board/BBMB were employees of the 'Central Government' and if so, whether their conditions of service were governed by the Rules which applied to temporary employees of

¶25

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.31 14:33 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶26

[3]

¶27

LPA No.1973 of 2013 (O&M)

¶28

the 'Central Government'? Similarly in Jagjiwan Ram and others' case (supra), the question that arose for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the work-charge service rendered by the employees in the Punjab State Electricity Board before their appointment on regular basis could be counted for the purpose of grant of time bound promotional scale/promotional increments from the date of completion of 9/16/23 years service? It may be mentioned that the policy for the grant of time bound promotional scale expressly contemplated requirement of 9/16 years 'regular service'. On the other hand, the issue involved in the instant case has been squarely answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narata Singh and another's case relied upon by the learned Single Judge. The apprehension expressed by the appellant-Board that the deceased-petitioner has not been asked to refund the retrenchment compensation/gratuity etc. as a condition for the counting of work-charge service towards pensionary benefits appears to have no legal and factual basis. The learned Single judge has allowed the writ petition in terms of the decision in Narata Singh's case (supra) in which such a condition was expressly imposed by the Supreme Court.

¶29

For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in

¶30

this appeal.

¶31

Dismissed.

¶32

November 25, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA] Mohinder JUDGE

¶33

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.31 14:33 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Bhakra Beas Management Board & Ors. v. Joginder Kaur & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bhakra Beas Management Board & Ors. v. Joginder Kaur & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs Pushpinder Singh & Ors.

Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs Pinki & Anr.

Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs Amanpreet Singh & Ors.

Lal Chand and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Anil Dhamija Vs Chandigarh Administration and Ors.

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.