Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2384 OF 2007

Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr.       ... Appellants

Versus

Narata Singh & Anr.       ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against judgment  

dated January 25,  2006 by the Division Bench of  the High  

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No.694 of  

1995  by  which  the  appellants  have  been directed  to  count  

previous service rendered by respondent No.1, Narata Singh,  

in the Departments of Punjab State as work charged employee  

for the purpose of determining qualifying service for pension

payable to him as an employee of the Punjab State Electricity  

Board (for short, the ‘Board’).

2. The admitted facts which emerge from the record of the  

case are as under: The respondent No.1 worked with Irrigation  

and Power Department of the State of Punjab on work charged  

basis from February 1, 1952 to September 18, 1953.  From  

September  25,  1953,  he  worked  as  work charged employee  

with  the  Bhakra  Dam  Project  and  resigned  therefrom  on  

January 27, 1962.  He thereafter joined the Beas Dam Project  

on February 1, 1962 and worked at the said project till April  

15, 1978 as work charged employee.  He was retrenched from  

the said project with effect from April 15, 1978 and was paid  

retrenchment  compensation of  Rs.11,803.20 and gratuity  of  

Rs.8559/- by the competent authority of the project.  Bhakra  

Dam Project and Beas Dam Project are under the Department  

of Irrigation and Power, State of Punjab and, thus, even as per  

the appellants, the services rendered by the respondent No.1  

as work charged employee in the  two projects  was,  in fact,  

service under the State of Punjab.

2

The appellant No. 1, i.e., Punjab State Electricity Board is  

a statutory body constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity  

(Supply)  Act,  1948.  The respondent No.1 was employed on  

work charged basis as a special foreman by the Board as a  

fresh appointee.  He worked in the same capacity from August  

6,  1982  to  January  5,  1984.   With  effect  from January  6,  

1984, he was appointed on regular basis.  He retired from the  

service  of  the  Board  with  effect  from  July  31,  1990  on  

attaining  the  age  of  superannuation.   The  respondent  No.1  

thereafter  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.   By  an  order  dated  

January 25,  1991,  the respondent No.1 was paid a sum of  

Rs.29,250/- being the amount payable to him as death-cum-

retirement  gratuity.   The  relevant  regulation  framed by  the  

Board  provides  that  an  employee  who  has  served  for  a  

minimum period  of  qualifying  service  of  10  years  would  be  

entitled  to  pension.   The  claim  of  the  Board  is  that  the  

respondent No.1 had served the Board for 7 years, 11 months  

3

and 25 days including the work charged service in the Board  

and was,  therefore,  not  qualified  for  grant  of  pension.   The  

claim of the respondent No.1 was that service rendered by him  

in the State of Punjab as work charged employee should be  

counted for determining qualifying service for the purpose of  

pension.   Therefore,  he instituted C.W.P.  No.10911 of  1991  

before  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  seeking  

inclusion  of  work  charged  service  for  the  purpose  of  

determining  qualifying  service.   A  Division  Bench  of  the  

Punjab  and Haryana High Court  at  Chandigarh,  vide  order  

dated  January  28,  1992,  allowed  the  writ  petition  of  the  

respondent  No.1  and  directed  the  Board  to  include  work  

charged  service  rendered  by  the  respondent  No.1  with  the  

State  of  Punjab  for  the  purpose  of  determining  qualifying  

service for grant of pension to him.  It may be mentioned that  

the Board had issued a Finance Circular No.24/92 dated May  

29,  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.

4

Feeling  aggrieved  by  the  said  decision,  the  appellants  

filed  special  leave  petition  (C)  No.7515  of  1992  before  this  

Court.   The  said  petition  was  allowed  by  an  order  dated  

October 12, 1992 in the following terms :

“Special Leave granted.

Heard  counsel  on  both  sides.   The  question  which  is  required  to  be  considered  is  in  regard  to  the  service  rendered by the respondent No.1 Narata  Singh  with  the  Bhakra  Management  Board  and  later  the  Beas  Management  Board.  The question to be considered is  whether that service was regulated by the  Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and  Gratuity  Scheme  and  whether  the  respondent  No.1  had  already  taken  benefit  thereof.   If  so,  the  effect  of  that  benefit  received by the  respondent  No.1  would have to be considered.  It appears  that the matter had not been considered  from that angle by the High Court.  We,  therefore, set aside the impugned order of  the High Court and remit the matter to  the  High  Court  for  reconsideration  on  merit.   The  appeal  is  disposed  of  accordingly.  There will be no order as to  costs.

Sd/- (A.M. Ahmadi)

Sd/- (M.M. Punchhi)

October 12, 1992 New Delhi.”

5

After  remand,  the  case was heard  by a learned Single  

Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court.  The learned Single  

Judge by order dated March, 10, 1995 dismissed the petition  

filed by the respondent No.1.  Thereupon the respondent No.1  

challenged the said judgment by filing a Letters Patent Appeal  

No.674  of  1995.   During  the  pendency  of  the  appeal,  

respondent  No.1  filed  an  application  on  August  27,  2004  

under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing  

on  record  certain  documents  in  support  of  his  claim  that  

service  rendered  by  him  in  the  State  of  Punjab  should  be  

taken  into  consideration  for  the  purpose  of  determining  

qualifying service rendered by him in the Board.  The record  

further shows that he filed another application for bringing on  

record  certain  documents  in  support  of  his  claim.   The  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  noticed  that  those  

documents  were  neither  considered  by  the  learned  Single  

Judge nor by the Board and, therefore, the Division Bench, by  

an  order  dated  August  24,  2005,  directed  the  Board  to  

consider  the  case  of  the  respondent  No.1  for  the  grant  of  

pensionary benefits, in the light of new documents filed in the  

6

appeal within four months from the date of the order.  After  

passing  the  said  order,  the  hearing  of  the  appeal  was  

adjourned.   Pursuant  to  the  directions  given  by  the  High  

Court, the Board reconsidered the case of the respondent No.1  

for grant of pensionary benefits in the light of the documents  

produced by him on the record of the appeal and rejected the  

said claim by a speaking order dated November 16, 2005.  The  

order  passed  by  the  Board  was  produced  before  the  Court  

hearing LPA No.674 of 1995.  The main ground on which the  

claim of the respondent No.1 for grant of pensionary benefits  

in the light of the new documents was rejected was that the  

case of  the respondent No.1 was not covered by Regulation  

Circular  No.54  of  1985  bearing  Memo  

No.257861/REG.6/Vol.5  dated  November  25,  1985  because  

he had rendered service in the work charged capacity outside  

the Board, i.e., in the Departments of the State Government,  

namely,  Bhakra  Management  Board  and  Beas  Management  

Board and that the said service was a non-pensionable service  

so far as the State Government was concerned.  The Division  

Bench considered the order dated November 16, 2005 passed  

7

by the Board rejecting the claim of the respondent No.1 as well  

as Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and the Full  

Bench  decision  of  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  

rendered in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [1988 (5)  

SLR 27].  The Division Bench noticed that the Full Bench of  

the Punjab and Haryana High Court had struck down Rule  

3.17(ii)  of  the Punjab Civil  Services  Rules  which,  inter  alia,  

provided that period of service in work charged establishments  

shall not be counted as qualifying service.  After noticing the  

ratio  laid  down  by  the  Full  Bench,  the  Division  Bench  

concluded  that  Rule  which  excluded  the  counting  of  work  

charged  service  of  an  employee  whose  services  were  

regularized subsequently was bad in law and, therefore, the  

conclusion of the Board that the case of the respondent No.1  

was not covered by Circular dated November 25, 1985 because  

services rendered by him as  work charged employee  in  the  

departments  of  the  State  Government  was  non-pensionable  

service so far  as the Government of  Punjab was concerned,  

was wrong.  In view of the said conclusion, the Division Bench  

by  the  impugned  judgment  has  allowed  the  claim  of  the  

8

respondent No.1 to include work charged service rendered by  

him with the State of Punjab for grant of pension and directed  

the Board to count the said period for determining qualifying  

service for the purpose of pension, giving rise to the instant  

appeal.

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties  

at length and in great detail.  This Court has also considered  

the documents forming part of the appeal.  The argument that  

the  respondent  No.1  had  served  the  Board  for  7  years,  11  

months and 25 days and was, therefore, not qualified for grant  

of pension as he had not put in minimum qualifying service of  

10 years, is devoid of merits.  It is true that the Board is a  

statutory body constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity  

(Supply) Act, 1948 and entitled to make regulations in exercise  

of power conferred by Section 79 of the said Act.  It is also true  

that  the  regulation  relating  to  pension  requires  that  an  

employee of the Board must serve for a minimum period of 10  

years so as to  claim pensionary  benefits  and that  the total  

service of the respondent No.1 with the Board is of 7 years, 11  

months  and  25  days.   However,  the  claim  made  by  the  

9

respondent  No.1  that  previous  service  rendered  by  him  in  

work charged capacity with the State Government should be  

taken  into  consideration  for  the  purpose  of  determining  

qualifying service for grant of pension is rightly upheld by High  

Court.   It  is  relevant  to notice  that  there  were many cases  

where employees who had rendered temporary service under  

the  State  Government  were  retrenched  but  later  on  had  

secured  employment  under  the  Central  Government  and  

claimed  pensionary  benefits  from  the  Central  Government  

wherefrom eventually they had retired.  There were also cases  

where employees who had rendered temporary service under  

the Central Government had secured employment under the  

State Government and were claiming pensionary benefits from  

the State Government wherefrom eventually they had retired.  

Therefore, the question of allocation of pensionary liability in  

respect of temporary service rendered under the Government  

of India and State Governments was considered by the Central  

Government.   The  Central  Government  consulted  the  State  

Governments  and  it  was  decided  that  as  proportionate  

pensionary liability in respect of temporary service rendered  

1

under the Central Government or the State Governments to  

the  extent  of  such service  could have  qualified  for  grant  of  

pension under the Rules of the respective Government, will be  

shared  by  the  governments  concerned  on  a  service  share  

basis, so that the Government servants are allowed the benefit  

of  counting  their  qualifying  service  both  under  the  Central  

Government and the State Governments for grant of pension  

by the Government from where they eventually retire.   This  

decision  was  reflected  in  letter  dated  March  31,  1982  

addressed by the Under Secretary to Government of India to  

the  Secretary  to  Government  of  all  the  States  Finance  

Department (except Government of Jammu and Kashmir and  

Nagaland).  The abovementioned policy decision taken by the  

Central  Government  was  considered  by  the  finance  

Department of Government of Punjab.  It was decided by the  

Government of Punjab that proportionate pensionary liability  

in  respect  of  temporary  service  rendered under  the  Central  

Government/State  Government  to  the  extent  such  service  

could have qualified for grant of pension under the rules of  

respective  Government  will  be  shared  by  the  Government  

1

concerned on a service share basis, so that the Government  

servants are allowed the benefit  of  counting their  qualifying  

service  both  under  the  Central  Government  and  the  State  

Government  for  grant  of  pension  by  the  Government  from  

where they eventually retire.  This policy decision taken by the  

Government of Punjab is reflected in a letter dated May 20,  

1982 addressed to all  the Heads of Departments,  Registrar,  

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Commissioner of Divisions,  

District and Sessions Judge and Deputy Commissioners in the  

State.   The  abovementioned  policy  decisions  taken  by  the  

Central  Government  and  the  Government  of  Punjab  were  

taken into consideration by the Board which issued a Memo  

dated  November  25,  1985  with  reference  to  the  subject  of  

allocation  of  pensionary  liability  in  respect  of  temporary  

service  rendered  in  the  Government  of  India  and  State  

Government and adopted the policy decision reflected in the  

letter dated May 20, 1982 of the Government of Punjab, with  

effect  from  March,  31,  1982  as  per  the  instructions  and  

conditions stipulated in the said letter.  This is quite evident  

from Memo No.257861/8761/REG.6/V.5 dated November 25,  

1

1985  issued  by  the  under  Secretary/P&R/  for  Secretary,  

PSEB, Patiala.

4. The  effect  of  adoption  of  the  policy  decisions  of  the  

Central  Government  and  the  State  Government  was  that  a  

temporary  employee,  who  had  been  retrenched  from  the  

service  of  Central/State  Government  and  had  secured  

employment  with  the  Punjab  State  Electricity  Board,  was  

entitled to count temporary service rendered by him under the  

Central/State  Government  to  the  extent  such  service  was  

qualified for grant of pension under the Rules of the Central/  

State Government.

5. The short question which arises for determination of this  

Court  is  whether  the work charged service  rendered by the  

respondent  No.1  under  the  Government  of  Punjab  prior  to  

securing employment with the Board would qualify for grant of  

pension under the Punjab Civil Services Rules.  This dispute  

deserves  to  be  determined  because  the  contention  of  the  

appellant  is  that  the  High  Court  was  neither  justified  in  

referring  to  the  definition  of  “temporary  post”  as  given  in  

Regulation 3.17(ii) of Punjab Civil Services Rules nor the Full  

1

Bench decision in  Kesar Chand (supra)  but the High Court  

should  have  taken  into  consideration  the  definition  of  

“temporary post” as per Regulation 2.58 of PSEB MSR Vol.I  

Part-I, 1972.  As noticed earlier, by memo dated 25.11.1985,  

the Board 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 of  pensionary liability  in  

respect of temporary service rendered under the Government  

of India and the State Government was agreed upon on certain  

conditions being fulfilled, one of which was that the period of  

temporary  service  rendered  under  the  Central/State  

Government  should  be  such  which  could  be  taken  into  

consideration  for  determining  qualifying  service  for  grant  of  

pension under the Rules of respective government.  In order to  

determine  whether  work  charged  service  rendered  by  the  

respondent No.1 under the State Government could have been  

taken  into  consideration  for  the  purpose  of  calculating  

qualifying service, one has to refer to definition of “temporary  

1

post” as defined in Punjab Civil Services Rules and not to the  

Rule referred to by the Board.  Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil  

Services Rules reads as under:

“If an employee was holding substantively  a  permanent  post  on  the  date  of  his  retirement,  his  temporary  or  officiating  service  under  the  State  Government,  followed  without  interruption  by  confirmation in the same or another post,  shall  count  in  Full  as  qualifying  service  except in respect of :-

(i) ... ... ... ...

(ii) periods  of  service  in  work-charged  establishment; and”

A bare reading of the above-quoted rule makes it clear  

that periods of service in work charged establishments were  

not counted as qualifying service.  Therefore, the work charged  

employees  had  challenged  validity  of  the  said  Rule.   The  

matter  was  considered  by  the  Full  Bench  of  Punjab  and  

Haryana High Court.  In  Kesar Chand vs.  State of Punjab &  

Ors. [1988 (5) SLR 27], the Full Bench held that Rule 3.17(ii)  

of the Punjab Civil Services Rules was violative of Article 14 of  

the  Constitution  of  India.   The  Full  Bench  decision  was  

challenged before this Court by filing a special leave petition  

1

which was dismissed.  Thus, the ratio laid down by the Full  

Bench judgment that any rule  which excludes the counting of  

work charged service of an employee whose services have been  

regularized subsequently, must be held to be bad in law was  

not disturbed by this Court.  The distinction made between an  

employee who was in temporary or officiating service and who  

was in work charged service as mentioned in Rule 3.17(ii) of  

the  Punjab  Civil  Services  Rules  disappeared  when the  said  

rule was struck down by the Full Bench.  The effect was that  

an employee holding substantively a permanent post on the  

date of his retirement was entitled to count in full as qualifying  

service the periods of service in work charged establishments.  

In view of this settled position, there is no manner of doubt  

that  the  work  charged  service  rendered  by  the  respondent  

No.1 under the Government of Punjab was qualified for grant  

of  pension  under  the  rules  of  Government  of  Punjab  and,  

therefore, the Board was not correct in rejecting the claim of  

the respondent for inclusion of period of work charged service  

rendered  by  him  with  the  State  Government  for  grant  of  

pension, on the ground that service rendered by him in the  

1

work charged capacity outside PSEB and in the departments  

of the State Government was a non-pensionable service.

6. The  apprehension  that  acceptance  of  the  case  of  the  

respondent No.1 would result into conferring a status on them  

as that  of  employees of  the  State  of  Punjab has no factual  

basis.  It is true that the State Government has power to frame  

rules governing services of its employees under Article 309 of  

the  Constitution whereas the  Board has power  to prescribe  

conditions  of  service  by  framing  regulations  under  Section  

79(c)  of  the  Electricity  (Supply)  Act,  1948.   However,  

governance  of  a  particular  institution  and  issuance  of  

instructions  to  fill  up the  gap in  the  fields  where  statutory  

provisions do not  operate,  is  recognised as a valid mode of  

administration  in  modern  times.   It  is  not  the  case  of  the  

Board that it was compelled to adopt the policy of the State  

Government.  The Board, on its own free volition, had issued  

letter  adopting the  policy  of  the  State  Government.   Merely  

because the employees of the Board like respondent No.1 are  

entitled to count period of duty performed by them as work  

charged employees in the State Government for the purposes  

1

of pension etc., it would not be proper to conclude that they  

became the employees of the State of Punjab.  In fact, having  

larger  interest  of  the  employees,  the  Board  had  decided  to  

adopt the policy decision of the State Government which can  

never be termed as arbitrary or irrational.   

7. The contention, that the two circulars, namely, one dated  

March 31, 1982 and another dated May 20, 1982 cover only  

the  employees  of  the  State  Government  and  the  Central  

Government  and the Board,  which is  a  distinct  legal  entity  

from the State of Punjab, is not covered by the same, is merely  

stated to be rejected.  It is neither the case of the respondent  

No.1 nor the case of the State Government that employees of  

the Board are covered by the circulars dated March 31, 1982  

and  May  20,  1982.   However,  it  is  their  case  that  the  

employees of the Board were entitled to benefit contemplated  

by those two circulars as soon as the policy laid down in those  

two  circulars  was  adopted  by  the  Board  vide  letter  dated  

November  25,  1985.   The  effect  of  adoption  of  the  two  

circulars, i.e., one of the Central Government and another of  

the State Government is that a work charged employee who  

1

has rendered services either under the Central Government or  

the State Government would be entitled to count the period of  

service  so  rendered  by  him  for  the  purpose  of  claiming  

pensionary benefits as an employee of the Board.   

8. It  is  wrong  to  argue  that  adoption of  circulars  by  the  

Board does not create a reciprocal arrangement between the  

Board and the State of Punjab and/or Central Government.  

The language of the three circulars is clear and unambiguous  

and,  therefore,  those  circulars  will  have  to  be  interpreted  

plainly.   The  conjoint  and  meaningful  reading  of  the  two  

circulars  dated  March  31,  1982  and  May  20,  1982  with  

circular dated November 25, 1985 of the Board unequivocally  

and  clearly  creates  an  arrangement  between  the  Central  

Government, State Government and the Board under which an  

employee  of  the  Board  who  had  earlier  occasion  to  render  

service  as  a  work  charged  employee  either  in  the  Central  

Government or in the State Government would be entitled to  

count the  period of  service  so  rendered,  when the  question  

arises as to whether he has put in qualifying service for grant  

of  pension  by  the  Board  arises.   The  respondent  No.1  has  

1

never requested the Board to consider his case for promotion  

de hors the circular dated November 25, 1985.  Having regard  

to the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the  

High Court was justified in issuing mandamus as prayed for  

by the respondent No.1.   

9. The plea that case of the respondent No.1 should have  

been rejected because it has financial repercussions is totally  

devoid of merits.  Before adopting the policy underlying two  

circulars, the Board must have taken into consideration the  

financial  implications  as  well  as  demands of  the  employees  

and thereafter must have resolved to adopt those circulars.  It  

has been brought to the notice of the Court that subsequently  

circular  dated  November  25,  1985  was  rescinded  by  the  

Board.   However,  there  is  no  manner  of  doubt  that  those  

employees who were covered by the circular dated November  

25, 1985 till it was in force would be entitled to claim benefits  

under the same.   

10. The argument that the respondent No.1 is already given  

the benefit of his previous service rendered as work charged  

employee under the Board while counting qualifying service for  

2

the purpose of pension and would not be entitled to benefit of  

memo dated November 25, 1985 adopting policy decisions of  

the  Government  of  Punjab  because  the  same  was  

subsequently cancelled, has no force.  It is true that the policy  

decision mentioned in memo dated November 25, 1985 was  

rescinded  by  the  Board  in  the  year  2004.   However,  the  

Resolution of the year 2004 does not indicate at all, that it is  

retrospective in nature nor it is the case of the learned counsel  

for the appellants that the Resolution of the year 2004 has  

retrospective effect.  Therefore, on the basis of the Resolution  

of the year 2004, the respondent No.1 cannot be denied the  

benefit  of  counting  of  previous  service  rendered  by  him as  

work charged employee under the Government of Punjab for  

the purpose of determining qualifying service under the Board  

for grant of pension.   

11. It was stressed that the service of the respondent No.1  

with the Government of Punjab came to an end on April 15,  

1978 when he was retrenched whereas after a lapse of more  

than four years, he joined the services of the Board on August  

6, 1982 and, therefore, the gap being not condonable under  

2

Rule 4.23 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the claim of the  

respondent No.1 should have been rejected, has no substance.  

The policy decision of the Board indicates that the benefit of  

policy  decision  of  the  Government  of  Punjab  was  to  be  

available to an employee of the Board with effect from March  

31, 1982.   A conjoint and meaningful  reading of the memo  

dated November 25, 1985 issued by the Board and the policy  

decision  of  the  Government  of  Punjab  as  reflected  in  letter  

dated May 20, 1982 of the Department of Finance makes it  

more than clear that the benefit would be admissible to one  

who  having  been  retrenched  from  the  service  of  the  State  

Government,  secured  on  his  own,  employment  under  the  

Board either with or without interruption  between the date of  

retrenchment  and  date  of  new  appointment.   There  is  no  

manner  of  doubt  that  the  respondent  No.1  was  retrenched  

from the service of the State Government.  This fact is not only  

admitted in the list of events supplied by the learned counsel  

for  the  appellant  but  is  also  mentioned  in  the  impugned  

judgment.  The record shows that on his own, the respondent  

No.1 secured employment under the Board with interruption  

2

between  the  date  of  retrenchment  and  date  of  new  

appointment.   Therefore,  it  is  wrong  to  argue  that  the  

respondent  No.1  having  joined  service  of  the  Board  after  a  

lapse of more than four years from the date on which he was  

retrenched by the State Government would not be entitled to  

the benefit of the memo dated November 25, 1985.   

12. It  was  contended  that  the  additional  documents  

produced by the respondent No.1 before the court in appeal  

could not have been taken into consideration and, therefore,  

the impugned judgment should be set aside.   It is true that  

the documents which were sought to be relied upon at  the  

appellate  stage  were  not  produced  by  the  respondent  No.1  

before  the  learned  Single  Judge  who  had  decided  the  writ  

petition filed by him.  However, there is no manner of doubt  

that  those  documents  were  brought  on  record  by  filing  

applications  which  were  allowed.   The  order  allowing  the  

applications was never challenged by the appellants before the  

higher forum.  The appellants, by their conduct, had permitted  

the said order  to attain  finality.   As those  documents  were  

neither  considered  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  nor  by  the  

2

Board,  the  Division  Bench  had  directed  the  Board  to  

reconsider  the  claim  of  the  respondent  for  pension  by  

inclusion  of  service  rendered  by  him  as  work  charged  

employee  under  the  State  Government.   That  direction was  

accepted and implemented by the appellants by considering  

the case of the respondent No.1 in the light of new documents.  

Thereafter, the claim of the respondent No.1 was rejected by a  

speaking order and the speaking order was produced before  

the  Court.   The  Court  had  thereafter  heard  the  learned  

counsel for the parties and, thus, the appellants were given  

sufficient opportunity to meet with the case of the respondent  

No.1  based  on  new  documents.   The  existence  of  the  

documents  relied  upon  by  the  respondent  No.1  at  the  

appellate stage was never disputed by the appellants.  On the  

facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the  

firm  opinion  that  neither  the  appellants  were  taken  by  

surprise when the respondent No.1 produced new documents  

which were considered by the Court  nor any prejudice  was  

caused to them.  Therefore, consideration of new documents  

by the Court does not have any vitiating effect on the ultimate  

2

decision of the Court.

13. The learned counsel  for the appellants pointed out the  

finding  recorded  by  the  Division  Bench  in  the  impugned  

judgment to the effect that “we are, therefore, clearly of the  

opinion that the work charged service of the appellant with the  

Board must be counted for determining qualifying service for  

the purpose of pension” and argued that the judgment of the  

High  Court  should  not  be  construed  to  mean  as  giving  

direction to the appellant to include previous service rendered  

by the respondent No.1 as work charged employee of the State  

Government for pension purposes.  So far as this argument is  

concerned, it is true that the Division Bench of the High Court  

has expressed the above opinion in the impugned judgment.  

However,  the  reference  to  Rule  3.17(ii)  of  the  Punjab  Civil  

Services Rules as well as the Full Bench decision of the Punjab  

and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab &  

Ors. [1988 (5) SLR 27] and speaking order dated November 16,  

2005 passed by the Board rejecting the claim of respondent  

No.1  makes  it  abundantly  clear  that  the  High  Court  has  

directed the appellants to count the period of service rendered  

2

by  the  respondent  No.1  in  work  charged  capacity  with  the  

State  Government  for  determining  qualifying  service  for  the  

purpose of pension.  Further, the respondent No.1 has been  

directed  to  deposit  the  amount  of  Employee’s  Contributory  

Fund which he had received from the appellants along with  

interest as per the directions of the Board before the pension  

is released to him.  All these directions indicate that the High  

Court had come to the conclusion that the period of service  

rendered  by  the  respondent  No.1  in  work  charged  capacity  

under  the  State  Government  should  be  taken  into  

consideration  for  determining  qualifying  service  for  the  

purpose  of  pension.   Non-mention  of  such  direction  in  the  

impugned judgment is merely a slip and the appellants cannot  

derive any advantage from this.

14. The net result of the above discussion is that this Court  

does not find substance in any of the arguments advanced on  

behalf  of  the  appellants.   The  appeal  lacks  merit  and,  

therefore, deserves to be dismissed.  Therefore, the appeal fails  

and is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

2

15. The appellants are directed to implement the directions  

given by the High Court in the impugned judgment as early as  

possible  and not  later  than three  months  from the  date  of  

receipt of the writ of this Court.

 …………….……..………J. [J.M. Panchal]

………….……..…………J. [K.S. Radhakrishnan]

New Delhi; February 23, 2010.

2