131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 37 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 Punjab State Electricity Board, through the Senior Executive Engineer, TLSC Division PSEB, Sadan Jalandhar .......... Appellant Versus Bachan Singh .......... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant-defendant. Mr. (Dr.) Naresh Kaushik, Advocate with Ms. Kritika Mandhan, Advocate for the respondent-plaintiff. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Defendant-Punjab State Electricity Board (for short “Board”) has filed the present Regular Second Appeal, assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2006 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court”), whereby its appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2002 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) decreeing the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff (Bachan Singh), was dismissed. [2] In short, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, while decreeing the suit of plaintiff, were affirmed by the learned First Appellate DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 37 of 2007 (O&M) -2- Court; thus present appeal is against concurrent findings of both the Courts below. [3] The trial Court record has been perused. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit. FACTS [4] Briefly stating, respondent/plaintiff-Bachan Singh joined as Work Charge with the defendant’s Board on 01.10.1974 and retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.1997 after attaining the age of superannuation on completion of 23 years of service. It was alleged that defendant-Board sanctioned a sum of Rs.45,369/- being the amount of gratuity to the plaintiff vide office order No.29 dated 16.03.1999, but, no other benefit was granted to him after his retirement. Therefore, it was pleaded that he being regular employee of the defendant- Board was entitled to the service benefits viz. leave encashments, provident fund, pension etc., but no such benefit was given to him. It was further pleaded that, despite having made several requests to the defendants seeking the release of his pensionary benefits, no payment was made. Hence, the suit was filed. [5] Upon notice of the suit, the defendants filed written statement taking preliminary objections of maintainability of the suit. On merits, it was alleged that the plaintiff, being a Work Charge employee, was not entitled to pension and other benefits and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Replication was filed by the respondent-plaintiff stating that non- regularization of service was a result of default on the part of the Board and he was entitled to the relief of regularization and consequent pensionary benefits thereof. DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 37 of 2007 (O&M) -3- [6] Since the parties were at variance, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for all pensionary benefits including provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, pension etc. on grounds mentioned in the plaint?OPP (2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration to this effect? OPP (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandate thereby directing defendants to pay all of his pensionary benefits alongwith interest thereof to be charged at the rate of 18% per annum? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the instant suit?OPD (5) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD (6) Relief. ” [7] On appraisal of evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 16.08.2002, decreed the suit of the plaintiff as follows:- “ RELIEF 16. As sequel to my above discussions, finding merit in the present case, the same is hereby decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The services of the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.10.1974 to 31.12.1997 are declared as regular services for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits to him after retirement. The defendants are directed to make the payment of all the retiral benefits to the plaintiff except those already granted to him, within three months from the date of present order alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of institution of the present suit till the realization of the decretal amount as the defendants illegally and wrongfully retained the retiral benefits of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the record room. ” DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 37 of 2007 (O&M) -4- [8] Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2002 passed by the learned trial Court, the defendants-Board preferred an appeal, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 03.10.2006 by the learned First Appellate Court. [9] This Court, vide order dated 16.10.2007, while admitting the present appeal, stayed the execution of judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, which reads as under:- “ This is a regular second appeal against con-current findings of two Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff for declaration and mandatory injunction was decreed. On behalf of the appellant, it is argued that the law point involved is that if work charged employee had contributed to the Employees Fund Scheme and had received the benefit after being retired at the age of 60 years, then he was not entitled to take pension under Punjab Civil Services Rules 3.17-A(1). He relies on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, PSEB and orders v. Teja Singh (2000) 10 SCC 15. Admitted. Stay execution.” CONTENTION(S): ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-DEFENDANT [10] Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that the plaintiff, being a work-charged employee, was not entitled to pension or any other retiral benefits admissible to regular employees. It is further contended that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Executive Engineer, PSEB and others v. Teja Singh, (2000) 10 SCC 15, wherein the distinction between work-charged and regular employees, particularly with regard to their DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 37 of 2007 (O&M) -5- conditions of service, including the age of superannuation, has been recognized. Learned counsel places reliance upon the aforesaid judgment to contend that a work-charged employee, having retired at the age of 60 years and availed the benefit of the higher age of superannuation as well as the benefits under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, cannot thereafter claim parity with regular employees, who retire at the age of 58 years, for the purpose of claiming pensionary benefits. The relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced hereunder for reference: “6. In the case of work-charged employees, the scheme of retirement benefits is different. The work-charged employees, on retirement, have the benefit of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme under which both the employer as well as the employee have to make regular contributions as set out above. The work-charged employees are also given the benefit of retiring at the age of 60 years instead of at the age of 58 years as in the case of regular employees. 7. The respondent retired as a work-charged employee. He was also given the benefit of retiring at the age of 60 years and he was given the full benefits under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme which included the employer's contribution also. After taking all these benefits, he filed a suit claiming additional benefits on the basis that he should be treated as a regular employee. We fail to see on what basis such a plea was made or allowed. It is clear from the plaint which he filed in the suit that he merely claimed that he was legally entitled to be made regular. Nowhere has he claimed that he was either absorbed as a regular employee or that he was regularised. That was not the basis of the plaint nor is there any document on record which would show that he was, at any time, a regular employee of the appellants. The very fact that he retired at the age of 60 years as also was given the benefit of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, is a clear indication that the respondent retired as an employee of the work-charged establishment. In view thereof, and looking to the totally separate scheme for retirement benefits for work-charged employees, we fail to see how the respondent can get DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 37 of 2007 (O&M) -6- any benefit of pension under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1979 which are expressly not applicable to him. The civil appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the suit of the respondent is dismissed” On the strength of the aforesaid decision, it is urged that the plaintiff was not legally entitled to claim pension and that the judgments rendered by the learned Courts below deserve to be set aside. No other point has been urged. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF [11] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the learned Courts below having appreciated the entire pleadings and evidence available on record, rightly decreed the suit of plaintiff while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant. DISCUSSION AND REASONING [12] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book / records, I find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff. [13] In the present case, admittedly the plaintiff joined the service of the defendant-Board as a work-charge employee on 01.10.1974 and continued in service till his retirement on 31.12.1997. Even in the written statement, the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff rendered more than 20 years of service and was granted regular annual increments during the course of his employment. Further, the plaintiff proved on record Memo dated 02.11.1993 (Ex. P-3), issued by the Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board. A plain reading of the said memo leaves no manner of doubt that the Board itself had formulated a policy for regularization of work-charge employees. The memo DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 37 of 2007 (O&M) -7- specifically provides that the services of work-charge employees working on continuous and perennial works were liable to be regularized after completion of three years’ service in the case of matriculates and seven years’ service in the case of non-matriculates, subject to availability of posts at the zonal level. Relevant paragraph 1(a) of the said memo reads as under: “The services of work-charge workers working in DS, TS, RE, Civil works (both Elect. & Civil) whose progress is susceptible to measurement shall be converted into RTM/ALM after completion of 3 years service in case of matriculate work-charged workers and 7 years services in case of non-matriculate work-charged workers subject to availability of posts on zonal level (CEs level) seniority. However, the work-charge workers working in civil works shall be given training for a period of six months in various technical training Institutes of PSEB on their regularization of services as RTM/ALM. To expedite the process of regularization of eligible work-charge workers, the regular posts based upon the work load ending 31.3.89 shall be created immediately.” The aforesaid memo inter alia envisages that the services of work- charge employees engaged on daily wages, including Malis and Beldars, as well as those engaged on construction projects, were also liable to be regularized. Pertinently, these instructions were issued by the defendant-Board pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh. [14] The policy was thereafter supplemented by Memo dated 18.04.1994 (Ex. P-4), whereby the Board decided to regularize the services of all work-charge employees who had completed ten years or more of service as on 31.03.1994. Relevant paragraphs of the said memo are reproduced hereunder:- DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 37 of 2007 (O&M) -8- (i) Services of W/c workers having service of 10 years and above working on the projects/posts where no normal channel of regularization of service is available, may be regularized on "as is where is" basis. (ii) The pay of the workers on regularization shall be protected without any additional financial benefit. (iii) While regularizing the services, the qualifications/selection criteria, prescribed for the post and those possessed by the workers, shall be kept in view and his/her services regularized commensurated with the qualifications possessed by the worker, those of non-qualified W/c workers, but having requisite experience, the services shall be regularized as unskilled workers. (iv) The requisite number of posts required for regularizing the services of eligible work-charge workers who fulfill the criteria mentioned in Paras (i) & (iii) above, shall be deemed to have been created to be occupied by such workers on regularization of their services." [14.1] Subsequently, by Memo dated 04.09.1997 (Ex. P-2), the defendant-Board extended the benefit of regularization by shifting the cut-off date from 31.03.1994 to 30.11.1996, thereby providing that work-charge employees who had completed ten years’ service as on 30.11.1996 would also be entitled to regularization. [15] A conjoint reading of Memos Ex. P-2, Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4 clearly establishes that the defendant-Board had undertaken an obligation to regularize the services of eligible work-charge employees. Admittedly, the plaintiff had completed much more than ten years of service by 31.03.1994 and squarely satisfied the eligibility criteria prescribed under the policy. Despite this, the defendants failed to regularize his services. Having omitted to discharge their own obligation under the policy, the defendants cannot now take advantage of their own default by contending that the plaintiff continued throughout as a work-charge employee and, therefore, was not entitled to pensionary benefits. DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 37 of 2007 (O&M) -9- [16] The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants upon Teja Singh’s case (supra), is equally misplaced. In the said case, the employee had admittedly continued and retired as a work-charge employee and there was neither any order nor any policy entitling him to regularization. It was in those circumstances that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, after having retired as a work-charge employee and availed the benefits admissible under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme together with the higher age of superannuation, he could not claim pensionary benefits available exclusively to regular employees. The facts of the present case stand on an entirely different footing. Here, the defendant-Board itself had framed policies vide Memos Ex. P-2, Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4 providing for the regularization of eligible work- charge employees. As noticed hereinbefore, the plaintiff had admittedly fulfilled the eligibility conditions prescribed under the said policies. The failure to regularize his services was thus not attributable to any omission on the part of the plaintiff but solely to the inaction of the defendants in implementing their own policy. The defendants cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own default and thereafter contend that the plaintiff must be treated as a work- charge employee for all purposes. Acceptance of such a contention would enable the defendants to defeat the very benefit flowing from their own policy of regularization. Consequently, the ratio of Teja Singh (supra), rendered in the absence of any enforceable right to regularization, has no application to the facts of the present case. [17] The failure of the defendant-Board to implement its own policy cannot operate to the prejudice of the plaintiff. The plaintiff rendered more than twenty-three years of uninterrupted service under the defendants and cannot be deprived of the retiral benefits merely because the authorities failed to DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 37 of 2007 (O&M) -10- regularize his services despite his undisputed eligibility. The consequences of the inaction or negligence of the officials of the Board cannot be visited upon the plaintiff. [18] In this regard, reliance is also placed upon the judgment of Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others v. Munsha Singh and another, 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 6693, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench, while dealing with a similar controversy, held that where an employee had fulfilled the conditions of the employer’s regularization policy, the employer could not deny the consequential retiral benefits by relying upon its own failure to implement the policy. The Court further distinguished the decision in Teja Singh’s case (supra) on the ground that, once an employee is found entitled to regularization, the consequences flowing therefrom stand on an altogether different footing. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder: “9. Admittedly, there were regularisation policies of the years 1978 and 1982 framed by the appellants themselves. Further, admittedly, the respondents were entitled to be considered for regularisation under the said policies, as they fulfilled the requisite conditions of the regularisation scheme. Not only this, their cases were considered and they were even found fit for regularisation. Orders were also issued in this behalf. However, the mistake on the part of the appellants was to offer the respondents regularisation on electrical side, whereas, the respondents were working in the civil organisation for more than 25 years and were going to retire in 3-4 years' time. Asking them to change the stream and work on the posts in which they had no training, experience and expertise, that too at the fag end of their career, was, obviously, inappropriate. The respondents, therefore, cannot be blamed for not accepting the regularisation offers and requesting to allow them to work in the civil works division. As far as judgment in the case of Teja Singh (supra) is concerned, that will not apply in the present case, as we are concerned with the issue of regularisation of the respondents. Once it is found that they were entitled to regularisation, DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 37 of 2007 (O&M) -11- the consequence thereof would be altogether different. 10. The learned single Judge has rightly remarked that the respondents had put in almost 30 years of service. Their work and conduct had been satisfactory. They worked in their respective posts without any break. Still, they are deprived of not only the benefit of pension, but EPF as well. When the policy of regularisation is not in dispute and they fulfilled all the conditions of said policy, denying them the benefit on hyper-technical ground (that too unjustifiably) would be travesty of justice. 11. We, thus, dismiss this appeal with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.” [19] In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings of the fact recorded by both the Courts below, there being no misreading or any misinterpretation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. [20] Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly. July 20, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document