Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Gaush Beg, Advocate and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents.
During the course of argument Learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the prayer no. 1 made in the writ petition be deleted and confined his argument for the grant of pension by including the ad hoc services rendered by the petitioner.
The issue involved in the present writ petition is that whether the services rendered as ad hoc employee shall be counted for the purposes of calculation of qualifying service to provide pension to the Government employee (petitioner) or not.
The petitioner was granted appointment on ad hoc basis on 08.09.1986 as Nursery Trainee, after facing selection proceedings, in the Directorate, Health and Social Welfare, U.P. and vide order dated 30th June, 2008 she was regularized on the said post. On completion of satisfactory service, she retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st October, 2015. After the retirement the petitioner preferred his representations before the respondent nos. 1 and 2 ventilating his grievances to include ad hoc services for the purposes of payment of pension and to pass appropriate order for the payment of pension. In spite of that when no action was taken by the respondents, then the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
Vide order dated 28.03.2017 this Court directed to the respondents to file a counter affidavit indicating therein as to why the petitioner would not be entitled to be given the benefit of the judgment and order dated 08.02.2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2710(SS) of 2015 (Smt. Santosh Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) and the office memorandum dated 14.12.2012.
In compliance to the said order a counter affidavit has been filed, wherein in paragraph no. 7 A. to L. reasons have been assigned by citing judgments of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, denying inclusion of services rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis. The statement of fact made in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit was replied by the counsel for the petitioner by filing rejoinder affidavit and in paragraph 5 and 6, wherein it is stated that the query made by this Court has not been replied in the paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit nor in the said paragraph it has been stated that why the judgment passed by this Court in Service Single No. 2710(SS) of 2015 (Smt. Santosh Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others), wherein the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Babu @ Babu Ram vs. State of U.P. and others, passed in Writ (A) No. 60352 of 2015, decided on 18.02.2016, has not been taken into consideration. In the entire paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.02.2016 and the Full Bench judgment in the case of Babu Ram (supra) has no where explained that why the said judgments shall not be applied to the case of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.(s) 10806 of 2017, decided of August 23, 2017, wherein following direction was issued:
?As already observed, the provisions of Rule 370 of the Civil Service Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakhand are pari materia with the provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, discussed above. If that is so, we do not see as to why the period of service rendered on work-charged basis by the appellants should not be counted for purposes of computation of 'qualifying service' for grant of pension. The pari materia provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules having been interpreted and understood in the above manner by this Court in Narata Singh (supra) we do not find any room for taking any other view except to hold that the appellants are entitled to reckon the period of work-charged service for purposes of computation of 'qualifying service' for grant of pension. We order accordingly; allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court.?
In the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Deo Tiwari vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 2896 of 2018, decided on 16.03.2018, it has been held that while computing the qualifying service for the grant of pension, the services rendered as work-charged shall also be counted.
The counsel for the State does not dispute the ratio of the judgment in the case of Habib Khan (supra) as well as considered in subsequent judgment in Ram Deo Tiwari?s case.
Once the Apex Court, after considering the relevant rules as well as the judgment of the Apex Court passed at earlier point of time, has held that the services rendered by the ad hoc, casual, daily wager and work-charged employee shall be calculated while computing the qualifying service to provide pension, then there is no justification on the part of the respondents in not providing such benefit to the petitioner by explaining the reason in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. The respondents have not explained in regard to the direction issued by this Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Santosh Kumari (supra). Therefore, the matter requires interference by this Court.
In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of his ad hoc services for the purposes of computing the qualifying service for the purposes of pension. The exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondent no. 2 within a period of 2 months in the light of the observations made above.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Pkb/