Order
1. The respondent was appointed as hammerman in the work-charged establishment of the appellants in the year 1960. He retired from service in January 1985 as a work-charged employee. On his retirement at the age of 60 as a work-charged employee, he was given his provident fund under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme which was applicable to the work-charged employees.
2. Under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, the employer is required to make a compulsory contribution equal to the contribution made by the employee. Accordingly in the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, a contribution was made by the respondent as well as the appellants during the 25 years of service of the respondent. The amount lying to the credit of the respondent was withdrawn by the respondent on his retirement.
3. Four years thereafter on 6-1-1989, the respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Patiala praying, inter alia, as follows:
“The plaintiff is entitled to retirement under the rules as if the plaintiff had been in continuous, regular service/qualifying service from 1960 to 1985 with all rights, privileges and pensionary benefits and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to treat the plaintiff as regularly retired under the rules with all the rights, pensionary benefits with arrears of pension, salary and allowance, etc. along with 18% PA interest thereon.”
4. The suit of the respondent was decreed. The civil appeal of the appellants was dismissed and the second appeal of the appellants was also dismissed.
5. In the present appeal, the appellants have pointed out that the regular employees of the appellants are governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1979. Under these rules, the regularly appointed employees are entitled to the benefit of the General Provident Fund Scheme under which the employee alone is entitled to make a contribution to the general provident fund. The employer is under no obligation to make any contribution to the general provident fund. Secondly, in respect of regularly appointed employees, the age of retirement is 58 years as against 60 years for the work-charged employees. The pensionary benefits of regular employees are governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1979. Under Chapter III of those rules dealing with “Service Qualifying for Pension”, Rule 3.17 makes it clear that periods of service in work-charged establishment have to be excluded while counting the qualifying service for pension. The material portion of Rule 3.17-A is as follows:
“3.17-A. (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 4.23 and other rules and except in the cases mentioned below, all service rendered on establishment, interrupted or continuous, shall count as qualifying service:
(i) Service rendered in work-charged establishment.
(ii) Service paid from contingencies:
Provided that after 1-1-1973 half of the service paid from contingencies will be allowed to count towards pension at the time of absorption in regular employment subject to the following conditions:
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 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.
8. While issuing notice, this Court on 21-11-1996 imposed a condition on the appellants that they should deposit a sum of Rs 4000 for the purpose of enabling the respondent to appear in this Court. The order further stated that the respondent, on appearance, will be entitled to withdraw the amount irrespective of the result of the appeal. In view thereof, the sum of Rs 4000, if withdrawn by the respondent, shall not be recovered by the appellant.