NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1793 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22469 of 2007)

Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors.                     ……….Appellants

Versus

Jit Singh                                                                    ……..Respondent

ORDER  

    Leave granted.

2) Punjab State Electricity Board (`Board’ in short)  is before us in

this  appeal,  inter  alia  calling  in  question  the  correctness  or

otherwise of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of

Punjab  and  Haryana  in  Writ  Petition  No.  7326  of  2005  dated

12.7.2007.

3) The facts in nutshell are, the respondent was appointed as security

guard  on  ad  hoc  basis  on  27.01.1976  and  his  services  were

regularized with effect from 9.8.1978. He retired from service on

1

attaining  the  age  of  superannuation  on  31.7.2000.   On  his

retirement, the respondent has received all the pensionary benefits.

4) The Board has issued a circular dated 23.01.2001, giving certain

benefit of “ad hoc service” to Board employees.  In short, in the

circular, it is stated, that, the period of ad hoc service would be

counted towards retirement benefit on regularization, provided the

employees fulfil certain conditions.  A clarification is also issued

by the Board, by Memo No. 41614/659 dated 14.2.2001, clarifying

the circular dated 23.1.2001.   

5) To take benefit of the circular issued by the Board, the respondent

had made a request to the Board to count his ad hoc service in the

Board  before  regularization  of  his  service  for  the  purpose  of

calculating the pensionary benefits.  The said claim is rejected by

the Board vide its order dated 5.10.2004. This issue was agitated

by the respondent by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court

of  Punjab  and  Haryana.   The  court  has  granted  relief  to  the

respondent.  The findings and the conclusions reached therein is

the subject matter of this civil appeal.  

6) The learned counsel for the Board would contend, that, the High

Court was not correct in relying on the full bench decision of the

2

Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kesar Chand vs.

State of Punjab & Others; [AIR, 1988 Punjab and Haryana, 265],

since in that decision the court was concerned with the issue,  the

effect of regularization of service of work charge employee for the

purpose  of  pensionary benefits  which are  available  to  the  other

public servants.  It is further contended, that, the Circular/Memo

dated 23.1.2001 and subsequent Circular/Memo dated 14.2.2001

are only prospective and the benefit cannot be granted to such of

those  employees  who  have  retired  from  service  prior  to  the

issuance  of  Circular/Memo  dated  23.1.2001  and  clarificatory

Memo dated 14.2.2001. It  is  further  contended that  the reliance

placed by the respondent on Clause 7 of the Finance Circular No.

73/89 issued by the Board is misplaced,  since that circular was

made  applicable  to  work-charge  employees  only.   It  is  also

contended,  that,  since  the  respondent  has  not  questioned  the

validity or otherwise of the Circular/Memo dated 23.1.2001 and

14.2.2001, he cannot take the benefit of those circulars, since they

are prospective and issued after respondent retired from service on

attaining the age of superannuation.  

3

7) The learned counsel for the respondent-employee would contend

that  there  is  no  essential  difference  between  a  `work  charge

employee’  and  an  employee  appointed  on  ad  hoc  basis  and,

therefore, the High Court was justified in relying on the full bench

decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand’s case

and directing the Board to reconsider the case of the respondent in

the light of the said decision.  

8) The issue that requires our consideration and decision is, whether

the High Court was justified in relying on the decision of Kesar

Chand’s  case  to  annul  the  order  passed  by  the  Board  dated

5.10.2004  and  secondly,  whether  the  ad  hoc  service  of  an

employee of the Board before regularization of his service requires

to  be  counted  while  calculating  the  pensionary  benefits  of  the

respondent.   

9) To resolve the controversy, we require to notice Memo/Circulars

issued by the Board dated 23.1.2001 and 14.2.2001.  They are :-

              (a)  “Memo No. 21064/21114/ENG-27(44)LCL 75                        Dated 23.1.2001               

              Subject: COUNTING OF ADHOC SERVICE FOR                               PENSIONARY  BENEFITS ONLY

The  matter  regarding  benefit  of  Adhoc  Service  has  been under the active consideration of the Board for some time past, the

4

Board in its 11/2000 meeting held on 29.12.2000 has decided that entire  adhoc  service  rendered  by  the  Board  employees,  shall regularization,  provided  the  employees  fulfill  the  following conditions:-

1)          Who  fulfilled  the  condition  of  minimum  prescribed qualifications  and  experience,  if  any,  for  the  past  at  the  time  of appointment and were recruited by following proper procedure were continuing un-interruptedly till date of regularization.  

ii) Who  fulfilled  condition  of  minimum  qualification  and experience at the time of recruitment but were not recruited by following  proper  procedure  and  continued  in  service without any interruption.  

iii) This  benefit  will  not  be admissible to  those  who do not fulfill  either  of  the  above  two  conditions.   It  was specifically decided that this benefit shall not be given to those  employees  who  have  either  been  retired  or  retired from the service of the Board.”

(b)        Memo No. 41614/659         ENG-27(44)LCL 75             Dated : 14.2.2001

           SUBJECT : COUNTING OF ADHOC SERVICE                                  FOR  PENSIONARY  BENEFITS ONLY

Part 2 of this office memo No. 21064/21114/ENG-27 (44) LC-75 dated 23.1.2000 vide which instructions were issued on the subject cited is amended and may be substituted as under :-

2) This  benefit  shall  also  not  be given  to  these  employees  who have either  retired  on  attaining  the  age  of  superannuation/compulsory retired/taken premature retirement or resigned from the service of the Board.”  

5

10) In our view, before we advert to the issues canvassed, it would be

useful to extract the decision of the Board on the claim made by

the respondent.  It is as under :-

              “Memo No. 12958/SGE-740                  Dated: 5.10.04                  Subject: In response to the legal notice given under Section 80                                CPC by Shri Jit Singh, ASI, retired, on 31.7.2000.

In response to the above, it is being intimated to you that as per the instructions of Board, you are not entitled to the benefit of ad hoc service for pensionary benefits.”   

11) The facts  which are not disputed and which cannot  be disputed

also are, that, the respondent was appointed as a security guard on

ad hoc basis  on  27.1.1976 and his  services  were regularized as

security guard with effect from 9.8.1978.  The respondent retired

from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2000.

The Board has issued a circular dated 23.1.2001 for the purpose of

counting of ad hoc service rendered by the Board employees for

the  purpose  of  quantifying  the  pensionary  benefits  after  their

services  are  regularized  in  the  Board,  if  they  satisfies  the

conditions  envisaged  in  the  circular.  By  yet  another

Circular/Memo dated 14.2.2001 the Board has clarified its earlier

circular that the benefit of the circular dated 23.1.2000 shall not be

6

given to those employees who have either retired on attaining the

age  of  superannuation/compulsorily  retired/take  premature

retirement  or  resigned  from  the  service  of  the  Board  before

issuance of the Board’s circular dated 23.1.2000.  That only means

the circulars are given prospective effect.  The respondent in the

writ  petition filed does not question the validity or otherwise of

the circular  issued on the ground that  they are  violative  of  any

Constitutional provisions, including Article 14 of the Constitution

of India.  It is not even the case of the respondent that the circulars

issued by the Board is arbitrary, since it treats employees retired

from service  prior  to  and  after  issuance  of  the  circular  of  the

Board.  Therefore, it may not be proper for us to take up an issue

which is not pleaded or urged either before this Court or before the

High Court by the respondent-employee of the Board.  

12) A retired  employee  of  the  Board  being  of  the  view that  he  is

entitled for the benefit of the Circulars issued by the Board dated

23.01.2001 and 14.02.2001, has approached the Board to count his

service  when  he  worked  as  adhoc  employee  till  the  date  of

regularization  of  his  service  for  the  purpose  of  calculating  his

pensionary benefits.  This request is rejected by the Board by its

7

cryptic  and  non-speaking  order.   The  order  so  made  was  the

subject  matter  of  the  writ  petition.   The  court  following  the

decision in Kesar Chand’s case (supra) has allowed the petition on

the ground that in the said decision, it  has been held “that once

service of work charge employee is regularized, there is no logic

to deprive him of the pensionary benefits available to other public

servants.  Even  the  temporary  or  officiating  service  of  the

government  has  to  be  reckoned  in  determining  the  qualifying

service.”

13) In Kesar Chand’s case, the facts were, the employee had joined as

Beldar on August 1, 1951 as a work charge employee in the office

of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathankot.  He had  regular service

without  any  break  till  the  date  of  retirement  from  service  on

attaining the age of superannuation.  While claiming pensionary

benefits  at  least  from  the  date,  he  is  deemed  to  have  been

regularized in service, he had relied on the award passed by the

Industrial Tribunal, and further had questioned the vires of Rule

3.12 and Rule 1.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which had

been  relied  on  by  the  respondents  to  deprive  the  pensionary

benefits. It was his further case that he was a government servant

8

and was paid from the government revenue and, therefore, could

not be excluded from the purview of Punjab Civil Services Rules

in  relation  to  pension.  In  the  back  drop  of  the  aforesaid  fact

scenario, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted relief to the

work charge employee, who had put in continuous service till the

date of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation.  

14) In the instant case, the facts are not identical.  The respondent is an

employee of Punjab State Electricity Board and not an employee

of  the  State  Government.  He is  not  claiming any benefit  under

Punjab Civil Services Rules, but claiming benefit in view of the

circulars  issued by the  Board.   He has  not  even questioned the

vires of the circular issued by the Board, wherein a cut off date is

prescribed by limiting to those ad hoc employees who are still in

service and whose services have been regularized etc.  Therefore,

in our opinion, the High Court by placing reliance on a decision

which does not have any bearing on the fact situation pleaded by

the  petitioner  ought  not  to  have  observed  that  the  principles

enunciated  in  Kesar  Chand’s  case  will  apply to  the case  of  the

respondent  and,  therefore,  authorities  of  the  Board  should

reconsider the claim of the respondent-employee in the light of the

9

principles  enunciated  in  the  said  case.   Therefore,  we  cannot

sustain this portion of the order passed by the High Court.  

15) Now, we come to the order passed by the Board dated 5.10.2004.

In our view, it is suffice to state, that, the order is a non-speaking

order  in  the  sense,  it  does  not  contain  any  reasons  much  less

cogent reason so fair play requires recording precise and cogent

reasons when an order affects the right of citizen.  In the impugned

order,  we  do  not  see  any  reason  in  the  order  passed  by  the

authorities of the Board. Therefore, in our view, the High Court

ought to have set aside the order and remitted the matter to the

authorities of the Board, to reconsider the claim of the respondent

in accordance with law.  That only means the order should have

been an open remand, instead of asking the Board to reconsider

the claim with reference to a particular principle laid down by the

High  Court  in  a  different  factual  scenario.  Since,  we  are

remanding the matter, we have not answered the second issue.    

16) In the result we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order

and direct the authorities of the Board to reconsider the claim of

the respondent in accordance with law.  

17) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  

                                                                                     …………………………………J.

10

                                                                                      [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [ H.L. DATTU ]

New Delhi, March 23, 2009.

11