Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners/respondents were initially engaged on daily wages on different posts in the Public Works Department and later on they were given appointment in the Work Charge Establishment. In view of the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 they were regularized by means of orders dated 18.3.2011 and 16.3.2011. The State Government by means of notification issued on 28.3.2005 has made applicable a New Contributory Pension Scheme, according to which, the said Scheme shall be made applicable to the employees, who were appointed on or after 01.04.2005. The apprehension of the petitioners/ respondents was that they have been regularized on 16.3.2011 and 18.3.2011, therefore, the aforesaid pension Scheme will be made applicable to them, though they are also entitled to get the services rendered by them in the Work Charge Establishment counted for the purposes of determining their eligibility for payment of pension in the old pension scheme. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 2455 (S/S) of 2012 wherein learned Single Judge issued a direction to the respondent not to apply the provisions of New Contributory Pension Scheme embodied in the notification dated 28.3.2005 and extend the pensionary benefits to petitioners in terms of the old pension scheme. Being not satisfied with the aforesaid order of learned Single Judge dated 5.10.2013, the State has preferred the instant Special Appeal interalia on the ground that the employees working in the work charge establishment are different from the regular establishment. Further under Article 370 of the Civil Service Regulation there is no provision for including the services rendered in the work charge establishment along with the services rendered in the regular establishment. In Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and others [2014(2) ADJ 69 (DB)], the appellant filed a writ petition for quashing the order which denied the benefit of the services rendered by the appellant in a work charge establishment for computing the qualifying service for grant of pension. When the writ petition was dismissed, he filed a Special Appeal, which too was dismissed and the order of learned Single Judge was affirmed, holding that the appellant is not entitled for including the period from 1st October, 1982 to 5 January, 1996 as a work charge employee as qualifying service for payment of pension. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant Jai Prakash approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition. The said Special Leave Petition has been dismissed and the order of the Apex Court reads as under:- "There is nothing on the record to suggest that any Rule or Scheme framed by the State to count the work-charge period for the purpose of pension in the regular establishment. In absence, of any such Rule or Scheme, we find no merit to interfere with the impugned judgement." The aforesaid judgement set at rest the controversy involved in the present matter. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Special Appeal stands allowed in above terms. Costs easy.
Order Date :- 19.9.2014 Muk .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Court No. - 24 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 271 of 2014 Appellant :- State Of U.P.Throu The Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt.Lko.& Ors.
Respondent :- Ram Shanker Yadav And Ors. 2455(S/S)2012 Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Y.K.Misha Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.
Heard on application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Appeal.
Cause shown in the affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay is satisfactory. Application is allowed.
Delay condoned.
Order Date :- 19.9.2014 Muk