Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1848 of 2010 Appellant :- Budhdhu Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Deptt. Of Revenue & Others Counsel for Appellant :- P.S. Sharma,A.P. Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.
This Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules against the judgment dated 7 January 2010 of a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.273 of 2010 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension has been rejected for the reason that he did not have the requisite number of years of qualifying service.
It transpires from the records of the Special Appeal that the appellant was initially engaged as a Seasonal Collection Amin with effect from 13 February 1978 and it is only by order dated 24 December 2001 that the appellant was given regular appointment as Collection Amin and he retired in September 2009. The appellant contends that the services rendered by the appellant even prior to 24 December 2001 as a Seasonal Collection Amin should be counted for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for payment of pension.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Board of Revenue through its Chairman-the District Magistrate and Up-Zila Adhikari Vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay reported in 2006 (5) AWC 5194 to contend that the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to his regular appointment should taken into consideration and on such service being counted, the appellant would have the requisite number of years of qualifying service.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, contended that the controversy has been resolved in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Navrang Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2015 (7) ADJ 655 which was also dealt by a Full Bench of this Court in Babu @ Babu Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2016 (3) ADJ 149.
We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
The decision in the case of Prasidh Narain Upadhyay was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Babu wherein it has been held while examining the case of a work-charged employee that the period of service rendered by a person in a work charged establishment is not liable to be counted for the purposes of computing qualifying service and Regulation 370 of the Civil Service Regulations continues to govern and hold the field.
In Navrang Lal Srivastava the Division Bench also held that in view of the provisions of Article 370 of the Civil Service Regulations, the period of service rendered in a work-charged establishment cannot be counted for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for grant of pension.
The impugned judgment, therefore, does not call for any interference.
The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.4.2017/NSC (Dilip Gupta,J.) (Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.)