Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 600 P&H

CWP-550-2023                              -1-

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH
(118)                                                         CWP-550-2023
                                                 Date of decision:- 12.01.2023

Pawan Kumar                                                    ...Petitioner
                               Versus
State of Haryana and others                                    ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present:- Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner.
                ***

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)

Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for

directing the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner on

daily wage from 20.05.1981 to 01.04.1993 for the purposes of pensionary

benefits and to release the arrears of the accrued benefits alongwith interest.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was

appointed on daily wages on 20.05.1981 as Baldar-cum-Mali. But, his

services were illegally terminated. He raised an industrial dispute and by an

award dated 01.03.2006, the petitioner was ordered to be re-instated with

continuity of service alongwith 50% back wages. As his services were not

being regularised, the petitioner approached this Court and by judgment

dated 19.07.2012, Annexure P-2, the writ Court directed the respondents to

regularize his services with effect from the date when the service of the

juniors were regularized. Counsel submits that LPA preferred by the State

was dismissed and by order dated 13.03.2018, the petitioner was regularised

1 of 3

in service. Counsel submits that the petitioner has retired from service on

attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2022, but the service rendered

by him, as a daily wager, is not being counted for the purposes of grant of

pensionary benefits. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule

14 (3) of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, Division Bench

judgment of this Court in 'Harbans Lal Versus State of Punjab' 2012 (3)

S.C.T. 362 decided on 31.08.2010 as well as a judgment of a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in CWP-4251-2016 titled as 'Paramjit Kaur Versus

State of Punjab and others' decided on 12.03.2020, Annexure P-5.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has served

the legal notice dated 22.09.2022, Annexure P-6, but without any success.

He submits that the petitioner will be satisfied in case the respondents are

directed to look into the legal notice.

Notice of motion.

On asking of this Court, Mr. Pankaj Middha, Additional Advocate

General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

In view of the nature of order being passed, this Court does not

deem it necessary to call upon the respondents to file a return.

Having heard counsel for the parties, but without examining the

claim of the petitioner on merits, writ petition is disposed of with a direction

to respondent No. 2-Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana, to

examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the submissions made by

him and pass a speaking order within a period of 4 months from the

communication of a copy of this order.

2 of 3

In case, the petitioner is found entitled to the consequential

benefits, the same be disbursed to him within a period of 3 months

thereafter. The claim for interest is declined.

                                                             (SUVIR SEHGAL)
12.01.2023                                                        JUDGE
Harish Kumar


         Whether Speaking/Reasoned                     Yes/No
         Whether Reportable                            Yes/No




                                  3 of 3