JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The status of a work charge employee came to be examined by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Smt. Laxmi Devi and others, 2009 (7) SCC 205 . 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner having spent more than 34 years as a work charge employee was entitled for the continuity of his service to be added for the pensionary benefits treating his services to be regular. He submits that the regularization of the services of the petitioner in the year 1996 does not disentitle him from getting pensionary benefits. He further relies on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Board of Revenue and others v. Prashidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006 (1) ESC 611. 3. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that there is no rule for adding the service of the period of work charge employee for the purpose of grant of pension. 4. Having examined the facts of the case it is no doubt true that the denial of pension appears to be harsh in view of the fact that the petitioner has served for more than 34 years, yet in view of the ratio of the decision in the case of General Manager Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan (supra) the status of a work charge employee does not entitle him to any service benefits for the purpose of award of pension. No other provision either statutory or in the shape of executive instructions has been successfully demonstrated before the Court so as to extend the said benefit. 5. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. —————