Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7296 of 2018 Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indresh Chandra,Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner was initially appointed on 22.12.1976 as a Chaukidar in the office of respondent No.4 and thereafter by virtue of order dated 07.12.1988 issued from the office of the Superintendent Engineer, Circle, District Varanasi and he was designated as permanent muster roll employee since 01.08.1988. It has been submitted by the petitioner that his services were regularized by means of order dated 30.04.2001 issued by the Executive Engineer, Prantiya Khand, P.W.D. District Jaunpur and subsequently the petitioner superannuated from the said post.
The grievance raised by the petitioner by means of the present writ petition is that period spent by him on the work charge should be counted towards the services rendered by him for grant of pension and other retiral benefits.
The counsel for the respondents on the other hand opposed this writ petition stating that according to the rules governing the service of the petitioner the period spend on the work charge cannot be counted towards the pensionary benefits and therefore has prayed that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, it is noticed that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh being Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2019. While considering the same issued as raised in paragrapah No. 35 & 36 of this judgment, which reads as follows:
35. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.
36. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that services rendered in the work-charged establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid rule for grant of pension. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed."
In light of the above, petitioner is entitled for the benefit as claimed for, and service rendered on work charge ought to be counted for the purpose of pension.
In light of the above, the petition is allowed, with direction to the respondents to recompute the pension of the petitioner including the period spent on work charge in terms of order passed by Apex Court in Prem Singh (Supra) but it is made clear that the arrears are confined to three years before the date of the order.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 A. K. Singh