Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38969 of 2004 Petitioner :- Kalpnath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madan Mohan Srivastava,Brijendra Kumar,O.P.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Madan Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent 2.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 21.06.2004 passed by Accountant General, Lekha-II, Allahabad i.e. respondent no.2 whereby claim of petitioner for counting services rendered by him in Work Charged Establishment for the purpose of pension, has been rejected.
3. Petitioner has himself pleaded in para 4 of writ petition that he was appointed in Work Charged Establishment on 10.05.1989 and services rendered by him in Work Charged Establishment has not been counted for the purpose of pension.
4. In view of Article 370 of Civil Services Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "CSR") read with Rule 3 of U. P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1961) this issue has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Babu @ Babu Ram Vs. State of U. P. and others, 2016 (34) LCD 1132, wherein Court in paras 21 and 22, has said as under :-
"21. We, therefore, hold that the period of service spent in a work charged establishment is not liable to be countenanced for the purposes of computing qualifying service. The law in this regard stands correctly declared and elucidated in Jai Prakash, Navrang Lal Srivastava and Ram Nagina. The decision in Panchu and the other judgments of this Court which have followed the line of reasoning adopted therein shall accordingly stand overruled.
23. We, accordingly, answer the reference by holding that the period of service spent by a person in a work charged establishment is not liable to be counted for the purposes of computing qualifying service. Regulation 370 of the Civil Service Regulations continues to govern and hold the field. The factual backdrop in which Narata Singh came to be rendered escaped the attention of the various Division Benches which followed it despite the existence of the unambiguous command of Regulation 370. Jai Prakash and the subsequent pronouncements following it and referred to above represent the correct position in law. The matter shall now be placed before the learned Single Judge for a decision on the writ petition in the light of what has been held above."
5. In view of aforesaid Full Bench judgment, relief sought for in this petition cannot be granted. Writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.
6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Manish Himwan