Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam, Ltd. Andors vs Nazir Khan And Ors ... on 28 February, 2024

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:10457-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1496/2014

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam, Ltd. & Ors.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
Nazir Khan & Ors
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Vipul Dharnia
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Sanjeev Johari, Senior Advocate
                                   assisted by Mr. Shubhanker Johari


     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order 28/02/2024

1. This special appeal has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the special appeal may kindly be allowed and the order dated 10.07.2014 passed by learned Single Judge may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Any other order, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of appellants."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the appellants are that the husband of the respondent

no.3, while the other respondents were employees of the former

Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) (now Ajmer Vidhyut

Vitran Niam Ltd.), under the appellant no.4 and were initially

appointed as work charged employees. Subsequently, the services

of the respondents were regularized and were thereafter retired

after attaining the age of superannuation.

[2024:RJ-JD:10457-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-1496/2014]

2.1. However, the services so rendered by the respondents during

the time they were work charged employees was not taken into

consideration while computing their pension. Appellant no.2 vide

its order dated 24.07.1997 while referring to its earlier orders

dated 27.01.1993, 24.02.1993 and 18.12.1996 provided that the

regular services rendered by employees as work charged

employee or muster-roll services be counted for computation of

pension, but vide another order dated 23.08.1997 a decision was

taken that the Board's order dated 24.07.1997 to be effective

from the date of its issuance and thus only pending cases as on

the said date to be finalized in accordance with the order dated

24.07.1997.

2.2. Aggrieved of the order dated 23.08.1997, the present

respondents preferred the writ petition bearing SB CWP no.

3917/1999 and vide order dated 10.07.2014 the learned Single

Judge allowed the same, while directing the appellants to compute

the period of services rendered by the respondents as Work

Charge Employees and add the services for the purpose of pension

and then compute the pension accordingly. Thus, aggrieved of the

order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been

preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned

Single Judge erred in failing to consider that the joint writ petition

suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties and the order so

passed was contrary and the same was passed without duly

appreciating the facts and record of the case.

[2024:RJ-JD:10457-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-1496/2014]

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single

Judge failed to consider the judicial precedent on the subject

matter as settled in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jagdish

Narian Chaturvedi (2009) 12 SCC 49 wherein it was held that

while calculating the period of service on adhoc, daily wages and

work charged basis shall be excluded and the said judgment was

further followed in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Karan

Singh (D.B. Special Appeal Writ no. 382/2013 decided on

25.03.2014).

3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the work charged services

rendered by the employees was not required to be taken into

consideration while computing the total length of service, thus

accordingly, the pension was computed; further prior to

24.07.1997 there existed no provision in law under which the

respondents could have claimed pension for period rendered by

them as work charged employees.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned Senior

Counsel assisted by Mr. Shubhankar Johari for the respondents,

while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellants,

submits that in pursuance of the order dated 27.01.1993 and

order dated 24.07.1997, the services so rendered by the

respondents should have been reckoned for computing the

amount of pension and the said inaction was in contravention of

the appellants' own order.

4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single

Judge has also in the impugned order decided in favour of the

[2024:RJ-JD:10457-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-1496/2014]

respondents; in furtherance, learned counsel submits that the

petitioners have retired a long time ago from their services and

thus as of today they are old aged persons.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

6. This Court observes that the husband of the respondent no.

3, and the other respondents were initially appointed as work

charged employees with the erstwhile RSEB under the appellant

no.4 (now AVVNL) and their services were thereafter regularized;

further, they were superannuated after attaining the age of

superannuation; meanwhile, an order dated 27.01.1993 was

issued by the RSEB itself wherein the period of service rendered

by the work charged employees was to be counted for the purpose

of computing the qualifying service for the purposes of pension

once the services were regularized and the same position was

reiterated in orders dated 24.02.1993, 18.12.1996 and

24.07.1997, whereafter another order dated 23.08.1997 was

passed considering only pending cases as on 24.07.1997.

7. This Court is conscious of the order dated 27.01.1993 passed

by the RSEB itself, relevant portion whereof is reproduced as

hereunder:

"2. The Board in its 404 th meeting held on 30.3.91 considered the position and decided that as per the pattern adopted by the Govt. the Board's work-charged employees who were absorbed/appointed to regular posts be allowed to exercise option to elect either to continue to contribute towards CPF or to opt for pensionary benefit under RSEB Employees Pension Regulations, 1988. On their electing to opt for pension, the period of service rendered by them as

[2024:RJ-JD:10457-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-1496/2014]

work-charged employee commencing on the day on which they have qualified to subscribe to the RSEB Contributory Provident Fund and ending on the day immediately preceding the day they were absorbed into, or appointed to the regular service shall qualify for pension subject to the conditions laid down in para 3 below."

8. This Court is conscious of the observations so made by the

learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 10.07.2014

wherein the learned Single Judge observed that the RSEB itself

had taken a policy decision to count the period of service rendered

by the work charged employees as qualifying service for the

purposes of pension for all the employees who had been

regularized and the said decision was reiterated in the subsequent

orders, thus by the order dated 23.08.1997, the RSEB was not

justified in creating two classes - one past cases already decided

prior to 24.07.1997 and the other only dealing with pending cases

in accordance with the said order dated 24.07.1997.

9. This Court thus observes that the policy decision of including