Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 716 (UTT)

SATPAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-11-12

ALOK SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Undisputedly, petitioner had worked for 9 year 3 month as a regular employee on the post of Dozer Operator and retired on 31.03.2008 attaining the age of superannuation. As per prevailing law, 10 years substantive service is required for grant of pension. Petitioner moved a representation before the respondents requesting them to count the period he worked as work-charged employee for pension purposes. That representation was rejected vide order dated 23.10.2010 (Annexure No. 5 to the petition). Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2010 (2) UD 458 and has argued that learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad has held that period of work-charged employment shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefit. He further submits that SLP filed against the judgment passed in Rameshwar Prasad’s case has already been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 17.01.2011 (Annexure No. 4 to the petition), therefore, judgment passed by learned Single Judge in Rameshwar’s case (supra) must be followed. 3. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Madan Mohan Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in 2011 (1) UD 6 has held that there is a different between temporary employee and work-charged employee. Service rendered in work-charged establishment before regularization is not a temporary service. Therefore, period of work-charged employment cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefit. 4. Dismissal of SLP, at the admission stage, does not amount judgment on merit. Therefore, judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Rameshwar Prasad’s case shall not be treated as good law in view of Full Bench judgment in the case of Madan Mohan Chaudhary (supra). 5. In view of the above discussion, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. CLMA No. 10590 of 2012 also stands disposed of.