PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. versus NARATA SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 23-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 27 
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. 
v. 
NARATA SINGH & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2384 of 2007) 
FEBRUARY 23, 2010 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Punjab Civil Services Rules - Rule 3. 17(ii) - Employee c 
working on different departments and projects of State 
Government on work-charged basis - Superannuated from the 
service under Electricity Board, where initially employed on 
work-charged basis and later regularized - Demanding 
pensionary benefits after taking into account the entire service 0 
rendered by him on work-charged basis under the State 
Government - Held: The entire service rendered by the 
employee was qualified for grant of pension under the rules 
- Policy decision of the Board indicates that the benefit of 
policy decision of the State Government whereby liability of E 
pension was allocated in respect of temporary service 
rendered under the State Government, was to be available to 
an employee of the Board. 
Responaent No. 1 worked with Irrigation and Power 
Department of the State of Punjab on work-charged basis 
F 
for a period of about 1 % years. Thereafter he worked as 
work-charged employee with the Bhakra Dam Project. 
Resigning therefrom he joined the Beas Dam Project and 
worked at the said project as work-charged employee. He 
was retrenched from the project on payment of G 
retrenchment compensation. Thereafter he was 
employed on work-charged basis as a fresh appointee 
with appellant- Electricity Board. Later, he was 
regularized. He retired on attaining the age of 
27 
H 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
superannuation. He moved a representation requesting 
the Board to grant him pension and other retiral benefits 
after taking into account the entire. service rendered by 
him on work-charged basis under the State Government. 
B 
The representation was rejected by the Board .. Thereupon 
he filed writ petition. The High Court allowed the writ 
petition, directing the Board to include work-charged 
service rendered by him with the State, for the purpose 
of determining qualifying service for grant of pension. 
The Board had thereafter issued a Finance . Circular No. 
c 
24/92 dated 29.5.1992 deciding to include the period of 
work-charged service of an employee with the Board for 
the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits as well as for 
counting the said period for determining qualifying 
service for grant of pension. Respondent No. 1 filed 
0 
Special Leave Petition against the order of High Court. 
The Supreme Court remitted the matter to High Court for 
reconsidering the matter. On remand, Single Judge of 
High Court dismissed the petition. In writ appeal 
respondent No. 1 filed applications for bringing on record 
E 
F 
certain documents in support of his claim. Division 
Benc.h directed the Board to consider the case of 
respondent No. 1 in the light of the new documents. The 
Board after reconsidering the matter rejected the claim 
on the ground that the claim of respondent No. 1 was not 
covered by Regulation Circular No .. 54 of 1985 bearing 
Memo No. 257861/REG. 6/Vol. 5 dated 25.11.1985 
because he had rendered service in the work-charged 
capacity outside the Board which service was non-
pensionable so far as the State Government was 
concerned. The Division Bench. after considering the 
G 
order of the Board as well as Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab 
Civil Services Rules and a decision of High Court in 
Kesar Chand's case concluded that the Rule which 
excluded the counting of work-charged service, which 
were regularised subsequently, was bad in law and, 
H 
therefore, the case of respondent No. 1 was not covered 
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 
29 
. NARATA SINGH & ANR. 
by Circular No. 54 of 1985. Thus the Division Bench A 
allowed the claim of respondent No. 1. 
The ques~ion for consideration before this Court was 
whether the work-charged service rendered by 
respondent No. 1 under the State Government prior to 8 
securing employment with the Board, would qualify for 
grant of pension under the Punjab Civil Services Rules. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. By Memo dated 25.11.1985, the Board c 
adopted letter dated 20.5.1982 of the Department of 
Finance, Government of Punjab, in order to allocate 
liability of pension in respect of temporary service 
rendered under the State Government. A bare glance at 
letter dated 20.5.1982 makes it very clear that allocation 0 
of pensionary

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.