JUDGMENT Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II)) – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Very short controversy is involved in this writ petition as to whether petitioner who has worked as a work charge employee for about 16 years continuously is entitled for pensionary benefits and all other consequential benefits or not and whether the period of work charge can be taken into account while computing the qualifying service. 3. On factual matrix narrated in the writ petition, the petitioner has joined initially in the year 1973 as Muster roll on the post of Mate in Lok Nirman Vibhag, Pratapgarh. Later on he was promoted on the work charge establishment on the post of chaukidar on 1.12.1990 till his retirement i.e. dated 31.1.2006. A representation was made by the petitioner on 15.1.2007 for the benefit of pension and gratuity, this representation was rejected by Executive Engineer Nirman Khand I Lok Nirman Vibhag, Pratapgarh. 4. A claim petition was filed by the petitioner before Public Services Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow being Claim Petition No.1536/07. This petition was rejected vide order dated 25.2.2009. Feeling aggrieved this writ petition has been filed. 5. It is not disputed by the opposite parties that petitioner was working on work charge from the date claimed by the petitioner. 6. The Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground that for granting of pensionary and other benefits counting of service rendered in work charge establishment is prohibited in the Rules. 7. Assailing the judgment of the Tribunal it was argued from the side of the petitioner that in case of Punjab State Electricity Board & Anrs. Vs. Narata Singh & Anrs. (2010)4 SCC 317 Apex Court has held that on account of work charge service rendered by an employee, under the State Government was entitled for grant of pension. It was also argued that this Court has in the Case of Kailash Pati Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. in writ petition no.1114(S/B) of 2007 also held that the service rendered in the work charge establishment should be counted to ascertain the qualifying service for pensionary benefits. 8. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 9. In writ petition no.1114 (S/B) 2007 Kailash Pati Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors decided on 18.12.2009 in which one of us (Hon'ble Mr. 8. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 9. In writ petition no.1114 (S/B) 2007 Kailash Pati Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors decided on 18.12.2009 in which one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Devi Prasad Singh) was a Member, it has been held that services rendered in the work charge establishment shall be taken into consideration for qualifying service. In that case, the Division Bench has relied upon an unreported judgment decided on 12.10.1998 by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1526 (S/B) of 1998- State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Suraj Bali & Anrs. in which it had directed to count the service rendered as temporary employee, though services were never confirmed. The Division Bench held that the petitioner of the writ petition was entitled for payment of regular pension as it was long duty of service S.L.P. filed against the said judgment and order by the State Government was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 01.02.1999. 10. Keeping in view of the decision of Board of Revenue & Ors. Vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006(1) E.S.C. 611 (Allahabad) D.B. and the judgment of this Court in the Case of Kailash Pati Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors (supra), it is clear that petitioner who has served in the establishment since 1.12.1990 till his retirement as work charge employee is entitled to pensionary benefit. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 25.12.2009 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and order of rejection of representation dated 6.8.2007. 12. Writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued commanding the opposite parties to ensure payment of salary/post retiral dues keeping in view, the observations made hereinabove preferably within a period of four months from the date of certified copy of this order is received. 13. No order as to costs.