Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1005 (ALL)

Ram Ashrey Yadav v. State of U. P.

2017-04-13

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, VIMLESH KUMAR SHUKLA

body2017
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present intra court special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2011 in Writ-A No. 57977 of 2011 (Ram Asrey Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.) by which learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with following observations: - “For the purpose of salary and other benefits, the petitioner claimed that his services as daily wager prior to the period of regularization should also be considered. This issue is now no more res-integra. This Court in Writ Petition No. 38220 of 2011 Amar Nath Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and others and several other cases including the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 43227 of 2011, Kashi Prasad v. State of U.P. and others has held that the services prior to the date of the regularization cannot be considered. In the aforesaid cases, the various decisions of the Apex Court have been considered. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, I hold that the services prior to the date of the regularization cannot be considered for the purpose of salary and other benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the law relating to the pension, which is available prior to the date of the regularization should be made applicable in the case of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner is only entitled for the pension and other benefits on the basis of the law, which was in existence after the regularization of his service. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.” 3. This much is reflected from the record that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in Lok Nirman Vibhag of the State on 16.8.1988 on daily wages. Thereafter, the petitioner-appellant has been sanctioned and made payment of salary at the minimum of the pay scale along with other allowances thereon w.e.f. 24.3.1993. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 36603 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner and other persons, which was allowed on 30.11.2004 with following observations “For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is a lowed to the extent that the petitioners are held eligible to be considered for regularisation under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On Posts within the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, by the Selection Committee taking into account their suitability. The required consideration shall be made by the respondents as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within three months from the date of communication of the order. No order as to costs.” 4. It is contended that despite the aforesaid judgment dated 30.11.2004 the respondent authorities has regularized the services of the petitioner-appellant and other similarly circumstances persons only by order dated 17.2.2006. The regularization has been granted under the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On Posts within the purview of the Public Service) Rules, 1979 treating the petitioner-appellant to be ad hoc Junior Engineer. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in fixing the salary of the petitioner-appellant at the minimum level in the pay scale on the date of his regularization as also on account of the action of the respondents in not making deductions towards General Provident Fund account treating the petitioner appellant as covered by the new pension scheme enforced from 1.4.2005, the petitioner-appellant filed writ petition in question being Writ-A No. 59777 of 2011. The said writ petition has been dismissed by learned Single Judge by judgment dated 10.10.2011 quoted above. Aggrieved with the same, present special appeal has been filed. 5. The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 10.10.2011 on the ground that the judgments relied upon by learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition pertains to daily wage appointment and appointment on seasonal basis. Even though the petitioner-appellant was initially appointed on daily wages from the year 1993 but he has been paid salary at the minimum of the pay scale along with all allowances thereon. Under the judgment dated 30.11.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 36603 of 1988 the petitioner-appellant has been treated as an ad hoc employee entitled to regularisation under the Ad hoc Appointee Regularisation Rules, 1979. 6. It is contended that the salary with regard to several other identically circumstanced junior engineers have been fixed after taking into account the date of their initial appointment on daily wages in the department. Such benefit has been granted to Bhabhuti Prasad Pandey, Mohd. Aquil Hussain and Surendra Singh Yadav. The said persons were granted appointment for the first time in the department on 16.3.1986, 20.09.1987 and 26.12.1989 and after regularisation their salary has been fixed after taking into account their length of service from the date mentioned above. Such benefit has been granted to Bhabhuti Prasad Pandey, Mohd. Aquil Hussain and Surendra Singh Yadav. The said persons were granted appointment for the first time in the department on 16.3.1986, 20.09.1987 and 26.12.1989 and after regularisation their salary has been fixed after taking into account their length of service from the date mentioned above. Copies of pay fixation order of Bhabhuti Prasad Pandey and Mohd. Aquil Hussain has been annexed as Annexure Nos. 9 and 10 to the writ petition. It is contended that there does not exist any justification for adopting different standard with regard to identically circumstanced persons. In this regard several representations have been made before the authorities concerned but of no avail. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the judgments in Khagesh Kumar & Ors. v. Inspector General of Registration & Ors., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 182; Arvind Kumar Rai & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1448 ; Board of Revenue & Ors. v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006 (1) ESC 611; Hans Raj Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2007 (3) UPLBEC 2073 and Buddhi Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2013 (1) ADJ 254 . 8. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that the impugned judgment has been passed in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in it. It is contended that the petitioner-appellant was not appointed as a Junior Engineer on 16.8.1988 on daily wages. The correct fact is that on the basis of availability of work and in view of the provisions of Clause 429, 430 and 431 of Part VI (1) of the Financial Handbook the petitioner-appellant was engaged on daily wage and he was given wages on daily basis. The petitioner-appellant filed several writ petitions before this Court with regard to his regularization and in compliance of the orders passed by this Court the minimum pay applicable to the Junior Engineers working in the Public Works Department has been paid to the appellant. The petitioner-appellant had never been engagedppointed against the substantive post in accordance with law, as such on the basis of period working as daily wager, he is not entitled for payment of salary of regular employee. The petitioner-appellant had never been engagedppointed against the substantive post in accordance with law, as such on the basis of period working as daily wager, he is not entitled for payment of salary of regular employee. In compliance of the orders issued by this Court the Government Orders have been issued by the State Government and pursuant to the said Government Orders the petitioner including other diploma holders working in different posts have been regularized. From the date of his regularization the petitioner-appellant is entitled for pay scale of regular Junior Engineer working in the department. After regularization and on the basis of pay scale admissible to the Junior Engineer of the department, his pay has been fixed, which is just and proper. Before regularization the petitioner was not appointed against any substantive post in accordance with service rules of the department. 9. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment in B.N. Nagarjun & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 1979 (3) SCR 937 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the word ‘regular and regularization’ and on the basis of the said judgment it is contended that the petitioner-appellant is not entitled for the benefit of regular Junior Engineer prior to his regularization. Reliance has also been placed in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the daily wage employee is not entitled for the benefit of regular employee as he has been appointed through back door entry. 10. It is further contended that no any Junior Engineer has been given the benefit of regular Junior Engineer from the date of his daily wage engagement and as such in this view of the matter the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of regular Junior Engineer from the date of his daily wage engagement. The appellant cannot take the parity of any employee, who has been given the said benefit in illegal manner. The appellant by showing his date of appointment as 16.8.1988 has got allotted his GPF account number, whereas the regularization date of the petitioner-appellant is 19.8.2006 and after 1.4.2005 no any regular employee is entitled for General Provident Fund. 11. Countering the submissions advanced by learned Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-appellant is not praying for salary being paid right from 16.8.1988 in the regular pay scale. 11. Countering the submissions advanced by learned Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-appellant is not praying for salary being paid right from 16.8.1988 in the regular pay scale. On the contrary the grievance of the appellant is that the entire length of service from 16.8.1988 should be taken into account while fixing the salary in the regular pay scale as on 11.8.2006 instead of fixation as has been done at the minimum of the pay scale on the said date. Further grievance of the appellant is that the petitioner-appellant was already working on the pensionable establishment of the State Government prior to 1.4.2005 and has not been appointed to government service for the first time on 11.8.2006. On such account the petitioner-appellant should be treated as governed by old pension scheme and not by the new pension scheme enforced from 1.4.2005. The petitioner-appellant has also relied upon the Government Order dated 7.12.2011, whereby the State government sanctioned identical benefit to a large number of persons mentioned therein. 12. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. 13. The issue, as has been raised in the present special appeal, is as to whether services rendered by the petitioner appellant in the capacity of daily wager can be taken into consideration for the purposes of clubbing the same prior to the period of regularization for the purposes of salary and other benefits. 14. Accepted position is that petitioner appellant has been appointed as Junior Engineer in Public Works Department of the State on 16.8.1998 on daily wage basis and, thereafter, in Writ Petition No. 36603 of 1998 directives have been issued for consideration of claim of petitioner appellant and other similarly situated incumbents under the provisions of U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment (On Posts within the purview of the Public Service) Rules, 1979. In the said judgment itself mention has been made that a person who is appointed on daily wage basis cannot normally be treated as having been appointed on ad-hoc basis. Only for the purpose of considering the matter for extending the benefit of regularisation and bringing them within the fold of regularisation they have been dubbed as ad-hoc employee. The services of petitioner appellant has been regularized on 17.2.2006. Petitioner appellant is before this Court and his grievance has been that salary has been fixed on the minimum level on the date of his regularization. The services of petitioner appellant has been regularized on 17.2.2006. Petitioner appellant is before this Court and his grievance has been that salary has been fixed on the minimum level on the date of his regularization. 15. The issue to be answered by us is as to whether the fixation, that has been so made, is a correct fixation at the minimum level or the services rendered by the petitioner appellant on earlier occasion also ought to have been clubbed. 16. At this juncture, we proceed to consider the statutory provisions under which petitioner appellant has been extended the benefit of regularization namely U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointment (On Posts within the purview of the Public Service) Rules, 1979 and therein Rule 6 provides that appointment would be deemed to be under relevant service rules etc. Once the appointment of petitioner appellant is to be deemed to be valid appointment under the relevant service rules etc., then any services rendered by the petitioner appellant prior to it cannot be computed for the purposes of extending any other benefit. 17. Once factual situation that is so emerging that from the date petitioner appellant has been extended the benefit of regularization, petitioner appellant’s services are being deemed to be made under the relevant statutory rules governing the field of selection and appointment, then petitioner appellant cannot claim as a matter of right that from any anterior date from which he has been performing and discharging his duties as daily wager be also clubbed for extending other benefits. Petitioner appellant becomes member of service from the date of order or appointment after selection in accordance with 1979 Rules and is entitled to seniority also from the said date of appointment and has to be placed below the persons appointed under relevant service rules prior to such appointment. 18. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, is absolutely right at the point of time when he proceeds to make a mention that services prior to the date of regularization cannot be considered for the purposes of fixation of salary and other benefits. 19. Petitioner appellant has also placed much emphasis on the fact that pension and other benefits ought to have been extended to him on the basis of earlier services, that has been so rendered, by giving benefit of old pension scheme. 20. 19. Petitioner appellant has also placed much emphasis on the fact that pension and other benefits ought to have been extended to him on the basis of earlier services, that has been so rendered, by giving benefit of old pension scheme. 20. The issue is as to from which date petitioner appellant should be treated to have become member of service and have to his credit 10 years of regular service, and thus entitled for pension. 21. The discussion made above gives the reply as to from which date petitioner would become member of service. Under the scheme of things provided for, from the date of regularisation only petitioner would be deemed to be member of service as the appointment in question itself is based on recommendations of selection committee against available permanent or temporary vacancy. 22. To answer the second part of the issue, relevant provisions are being looked into: Regulation 352 of the Civil Service Regulation specifically deals with cases wherein claims to pension is in admissible. “(a) When an officer is appointed for a limited time only or a specified duty, on the completion of which he is to be discharged. (b) When a person is employed temporarily on monthly wages without specified limit of time or duty, but a month’s notice of discharge should be given to such a person, and his wages must be paid for any period by which such notice falls short of a month. (c) When a person’s whole-time is not retained for the public service, but he is merely paid for work done for the State. (d) When a public servant hold some other pensionable office he earns no pension in respect of an office of the kind mentioned in clause (c) or in respect of duties paid for by a Local Allowance. (e) When an officer servers under a covenant which contains no stipulation regarding pension, unless the State Government specially authorities an officer to count such service towards pension.” The term “qualifying service” is defined in Section 1 Chapter 16 of Article 361 of the Civil Service Regulations, which provides that the service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions: (A) The service must be under Government. (B) The employment must by substantive and permanent. (C) The service must be paid by Government. (B) The employment must by substantive and permanent. (C) The service must be paid by Government. Regulation 368 of Civil Service Regulation, clearly proceeds to mention that service does not qualify, unless the Officer holds a substantive office on permanent establishment. Regulation 370 of Civil Service Regulation is also being looked into which is being extracted below: “370. Continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruptions by confirmation in the same or any other post shall qualify except -- (i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non-pensionable establishment; (ii) periods of service in work charged establishment; and (iii) periods of service in a post paid form contingencies.” Regulation 325 specifically deals with cases wherein pension is inadmissible. Regulation 370, as quoted above, expressly proceeded to mention, that continuous temporary or officiating service followed without interruptions by confirmation in the same post or any other post shall qualify except for the period expressly excluded in the services, such as (i) period of temporary and officiating service in non-pensionable establishment (ii) period of service in work charge establishment and (iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies. 23. Article 424 Chapter 18 of the Civil Service Regulations provides the following kinds of pension admissible to a Government servant (a) compensation pension (b) invalid pensions (c) superannuation pension (d) retiring pensions. 24. Fundamental Rule 56 provides for retiring of a Government servant on attaining the age of 58 years or 60 years as the case may be. It is not disputed that in the present case, the age of superannuation of the petitioner-respondent was 60 years. Clause (e) of Fundamental Rule 56 reads as under: (e) “A retiring pension shall be payable and other retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to every Government servant who retires or is required allowed to retire under this rule: Provided that where a Government servant who voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this rule the appointing authority may allow him, for the purposes of pension and gratuity, if any, the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation, whichever be less.” 25. Article 465 and 465-A provides as under: “465 (1) A retiring pension is granted to a Government servant who is permitted to retire after competing qualifying service for 25 years or on attaining the age of 50 years. (2) A retiring pension is also granted to a Government servant who is required by Government to retire after attaining the age of 50 years. 465-A. For officers mentioned in Article 349-A, the rule for the grant of retiring pension is as follows; (1) An officer is entitled on his resignation being accepted, to a retiring pension after completing qualifying service of not less than 25 years, or on attaining the age of 50 years. (2) A retiring pension is also granted to an office who is required by Government to retire after attaining the age of 50 years.” 26. Government Order dated 01.06.1989 has been issued, keeping in view the provision of Regulation 368, and the practical situation that confirmation takes its own time and incumbent attains his age of superannuation, and in order to overcome and remedy such situation to extend pensionary benefits to temporary employee, in effect such provision has been relaxed, who have served for at least ten years regular service. 27. At this juncture the various view points of this Court based on interpretation of such provision is being extracted below. 28. This particular provision has been considered by Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Board of Revenue v. Board of Revenue v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay reported in 2006 (1) ESC 611, in following terms: “In the present case, so far as the condition Nos. A and C are concerned they are satisfied and the dispute is only with respect of condition No. B, i.e. lack of permanent character of service. However, in our view, the aforesaid provisions stand obliterated after the amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1975 which allows retirement of a temporary employee also and provides in Clause (e) that a retiring pension is payable and other retiral benefits, if any shall be available to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this Rule. Since the aforesaid amendment Rule 56 was made by an Act of Legislature, the provisions contained otherwise under Civil Service Regulations, which are pre-constitutional, would have to give way to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56. Since the aforesaid amendment Rule 56 was made by an Act of Legislature, the provisions contained otherwise under Civil Service Regulations, which are pre-constitutional, would have to give way to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56. In other words, the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 shall prevail over the Civil Service Regulations, if they are consistent. Condition B (supra) of Article 361 of Civil Service Regulations are clearly inconsistent with Fundamental Rule 56 and thus, is inoperative. A similar controversy came up for consideration earlier before this Court in the case of Dr. Hari Shankar Ashopa v. State of U.P. and others, 1989 ACJ 337. After referring to the Fundamental Rule 56 and various provisions contained in Civil Service Regulations, this Court observed as under: “Clause (e) of Rule 56 unequivocally recognizes, declares and guarantees retiring pension to every Government servant who retires on attaining the age of superannuation, or who is prematurely retired or who retires voluntarily. To be precise, every Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) who retires under Clause (a) or Clause (b) or who is required to retire, or who is allowed to retire under Clause (c) of Rule 56, becomes entitled for a retiring pension, of course, the first and third conditions stipulated in Article 361 of the Regulations are satisfied.” In this view of the matter, the contention of the appellants that since the petitioner-respondent was not a permanent confirmed employee and hence not entitled for pension is clearly misconceived is rejected.” 29. Said Division Bench judgment has again been considered by this Court in the case of Babu Singh v. State of U.P. decided on 15.06.2006 as follows: “No doubt pension and retiral benefits are no longer a bounty but a right of a retired employee. However, the aforesaid right is governed by Rules and retiral benefits are payable only in accordance with the Rules. In D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India, (1983) ILLJ 104 SC, the Apex Court held that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet-will of the employer, but is a vested right subject to the rules governing mode and manner of payment thereof. In D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India, (1983) ILLJ 104 SC, the Apex Court held that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet-will of the employer, but is a vested right subject to the rules governing mode and manner of payment thereof. It was also held that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but is a payment for the past service rendered by the employee and it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. In the present case it is not disputed that the retirement of the petitioner employee is governed under Fundamental Rule 56 read with relevant provisions of Civil Service Regulations. Every employee whether permanent or temporary or ad hoc is liable to retire on attaining the age of superannuation as provided under Fundamental Rule 56. Fundamental Rule 56(e) as amended by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1975 provides that a retiring pension shall be payable and other retiral benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to every Government servant who retires or in required or allowed to retire under the said rule. It is not disputed that the petitioner, in the present case has been made to retire on attaining the age of superannuation under Fundamental Rule 56. The provisions of Civil Service Regulations which are pre-constitutional provisions will have to sub-serve Fundamental Rule 56 which has been enacted through a legislative enactment. Since Fundamental Rule 56 also gives a right of retiring pension to a temporary employee, the provisions of Civil Service Regulations have to be read consistent with the scheme of Fundamental Rule 56 so as to permit payment of pension and retiral benefits to the temporary employee as well. This results in reading down the provision of CSR which excludes temporary and non substantive service from being included in qualifying service. I do not find any reason to dilate on this aspect since it has already adjudicated by two Division Benches of this Court in Dr. Hari Shankar Ashopa v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1989 ACJ 337, and Board of Revenue and Ors. v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay (supra). I do not find any reason to dilate on this aspect since it has already adjudicated by two Division Benches of this Court in Dr. Hari Shankar Ashopa v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1989 ACJ 337, and Board of Revenue and Ors. v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay (supra). In the later case the Division Bench (in which I was also a party) the service rendered by a Seasonal Collection peon before his formal engagement a temporary Collection Amin was also directed to be counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary rights. In paras 13 and 16 of the judgment the Division Bench held as under: 13. In the present case, so far as the condition Nos. A and C are concerned they are satisfied and the dispute is only with respect of condition No. B, i.e. lack of permanent character of service. However, in our view, the aforesaid provisions stand obliterated after the amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1975 which allows retirement of a temporary employee also and provides in Clause (e) that a retiring pension is payable and oilier retiral benefits, if any shall be available to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this Rule. 16. Even otherwise the continuous working of the petitioner-respondent for more than 37 years cannot be ignored on the basis of a vague and unsubstantiated plea sought to be raised by the appellants. The statutory right of the petitioner-respondent flowing by rendering service for such a long service, cannot be brushed aside lightly. “11. In the present case admittedly the petitioner was appointed on 24.10.1973 and continued with the respondents till 30.6.2001, i.e. for almost 28 years and denial of retiral benefits to the petitioner after rendering such a long service is neither justified under the Rules nor, otherwise is in accordance with law. Article 361 of Civil Service Regulations has been interpreted and read down in the light of Fundamental Rule 56 by the Division Bench in Dr. Hari Shankar Ashopa v. State of U.P. and others (supra) which has been followed in Board of Revenue & others v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay (supra). Fundamental Rule 56 as amended in U.P. allows retiring pension to a temporary employee also, who retires or is required or allowed to retire under the said Rule. Hari Shankar Ashopa v. State of U.P. and others (supra) which has been followed in Board of Revenue & others v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay (supra). Fundamental Rule 56 as amended in U.P. allows retiring pension to a temporary employee also, who retires or is required or allowed to retire under the said Rule. Therefore, it cannot be said that an employee must render permanent service, only thereafter he will be entitled for pensionary benefits. In the present case, the view taken by the respondent-authorities that the petitioner is not entitled for pension, since for the purpose of qualifying service, minimum period of 10 years must be completed by the employee from the date of his regularisation, is not correct and unsustainable in law.” 30. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bansh Gopal State of U.P., 2006 (3) ESC 2428 wherein incumbent had put in merely six years of regular service, has taken the view that he was not at all entitled for pension and therein Division Bench of this Court, has dealt with and explained the background of the case, in which Board of Revenue case (supra) was decided, and also clearly took the view that Government Order dated 01.07.1989 requires 10 years of regular service, which even higher than temporary service. 31. Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 , has dealt with in detail viz-a-viz the status of daily wagers, temporary employee and ad-hoc employees and has clearly ruled, that Courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate by-passing of constitutional and statutory mandates. Said judgment has again been extensively dealt with in the case of Uttranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi, 2009 (7) SCC 205 , by mentioning that before person claims status of government servant, not only his appointment may be made in terms of recruitment rules, he must otherwise fulfil criteria provided for. Appointment made in violation of constitutional scheme is nullity. Rendition of service for a long time, it is well known does not confer permanency, it is furthermore not a mode of appointment. 32. Appointment made in violation of constitutional scheme is nullity. Rendition of service for a long time, it is well known does not confer permanency, it is furthermore not a mode of appointment. 32. The expressions ‘regular service’ has not been defined either under the provisions of the Act or rules framed thereunder or under U.P. Fundamental Rules contained in Chapter 2 Vol. 2 Part II to IV of Financial Handbook, which defines various general conditions of Government service, therefore, it is necessary to examine the content and import of the aforesaid expressions by taking help of dictionary meaning assigned to the aforesaid expressions and other recognised mode of interpretation of statute. 33. In Law of Lexicons the expression ‘regular’ and ‘regular services’ have been assigned meanings at page 1638-1639 as under: “Regular - Webster defines “regular” to mean conformable to a rule; methodical; periodical. “REGULAR” is derived from “regular”, meaning “rule”, and its first and legitimate signification, according to Webster, is “conformable to a rule’ agreeable to an established rule, law, or principle, to a prescribed mode, or according to established, customary forms.” Regular - Conformable to rule; periodical; recurring or repeated at fixed times or uniform intervals; properly constituted; normal; marked by steadiness or uniformity of action, procedure or occurrence. Regular services - The expression ‘regular forces’ mean officers and soldiers who by their commission, terms of enlistment, or otherwise are liable to render continuously for a term military service to His Majesty in every part of the world or in any specified part of the world. R.V. Governor of Wormwood Scrubs Prison, (1948) 1 All ER 438, 441 (KBD). [Army Act. S. 190(8)]” 34. From a bare reading of the dictionary meaning of aforesaid expressions, it appears that expression ‘regular’ has been assigned various meanings, therefore, it is very difficult to find out appropriate meaning of the expressions ‘regular service’ from dictionary meaning so as to enable the court to come to a definite conclusion. The proper course in such cases is to search out and follow the true intent of the legislature and to adopt that sense of the word which harmonises best with the context and advance the object of the legislature. While determining as to the meaning of particular word in a particular statute it is, therefore, permissible to consider two aspects; viz. While determining as to the meaning of particular word in a particular statute it is, therefore, permissible to consider two aspects; viz. (I) the external evidence derived from the circumstances such as previous legislation and decided cases and (II) internal evidence derived from the statute itself. 35. In this connection, it is necessary to point out that in case, the rule making authority would have intended to prescribe completion of merely ten years continuous service, which may legitimately include seasonal, casual daily rated and ad hoc services also, there would have been no occasion to use the expression ‘regular ‘ as adjective before the word ‘service’ used in the said rules/government order therefore, the expression ‘regular’ must have its significance under the rule/government order in question and the words used in the statute cannot be treated to be surplus and superfluous without any meaning being assigned to it. It is also well settled rule of construction of statute that unless it is unavoidable a construction renders a provision superfluous must be rejected. Statutory enactment must ordinarily be construed according to plain and natural meaning of its language and no words should be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so in order to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with rest of the statute. The expression ‘regular service’ must be given different meaning from “mere continuous uninterrupted service”. It should not be equated with the continuous service, further the expression ‘regular service’ should also not be equated with the services rendered by ad hoc appointee as in that event of the matter, there would have been no occasion for the rule making authority to use the expression ‘regular service’ instead of merely using the expression ‘continuous service’. This view does neither lead to any anomalous result nor lead to any absurdity and also finds support from the decision rendered by Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S. Association’s, 2000 (8) SCC 4 . 36. This view does neither lead to any anomalous result nor lead to any absurdity and also finds support from the decision rendered by Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S. Association’s, 2000 (8) SCC 4 . 36. Once again Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Ashwani Kumar, AIR 2009 SC 186 , has taken note of the aforesaid judgment and held as follows: Paragraphs 2 to 6 are being extracted: “Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the ad-hoc services of the respondents were to be counted for the purpose of seniority. Reliance was placed on certain other orders of the High Courts passed earlier. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that this Court had occasion to deal with the appeals filed by the State questioning correctness of the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the High Court. Respondents were initially appointed during the period 1978 to 1987 as Clerks on ad-hoc basis and were regularized between the period from 1980 to 1990. Respondents submitted representations claiming the benefit of their ad-hoc services relying on the judgment to which reference has been made by the High Court in the impugned judgment. Prayer was to the effect that the ad-hoc service was to be counted for all intents and purposes including seniority. 4. The main question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the period of ad-hoc services rendered by the respondents is to be included for calculating the seniority. This question was considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr. ( 2000 (8) SCC 4 ) wherein this Court took the view that for calculating 8/18 years service required for giving higher scale of pay and for determination of seniority only regular service rendered by the employee is to be counted and not ad-hoc service. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the respondents who are Clerks serving under the State of Punjab are governed by a set of Rules and circulars different from those which were considered in the decided case and, therefore, the ratio in that case will not be applicable in these cases. We have carefully considered the said contention. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the respondents who are Clerks serving under the State of Punjab are governed by a set of Rules and circulars different from those which were considered in the decided case and, therefore, the ratio in that case will not be applicable in these cases. We have carefully considered the said contention. We have also considered the Government Letter No. 4/8/85-3PPI/4408 dated 13.3.1996 containing the policy instructions. On a plain reading of the letter, it is clear that the instructions contained therein were based on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court taking the view that ad-hoc service should be taken into account for the purpose. This letter in our view can no longer form the basis of the contention in view of the recent decision by this Court in State of Hayana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr. (supra). Undisputedly, the respondents at the time of their appointment were governed by the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of service) Rules, 1994. In Rule 8 of the said Rules it is provided that the seniority of the persons appointed on purely provisional basis or on ad-hoc basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment. Further, in the orders appointing the respondents on ad-hoc basis, it was specifically stated that they will be governed by the aforementioned Rules. It was further stated in paragraph III of the appointment letter that the appointees’ seniority will be determined only by merit in which he or she is placed by Punjab Public Service Commission. Thus it is clear that only regular service is to be counted towards seniority. 6. We do not feel it necessary to delve further into merits of the case in view of the decision of this Court in State of Hayana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr. (supra). We are satisfied that the ratio in that case applies to the case in hand. The resultant position that emerges is that the judgment/order passed by the High Court holding that ad-hoc service is to be included in calculating the period of service for giving the higher scale of pay is unsustainable and has to be vacated. (supra). We are satisfied that the ratio in that case applies to the case in hand. The resultant position that emerges is that the judgment/order passed by the High Court holding that ad-hoc service is to be included in calculating the period of service for giving the higher scale of pay is unsustainable and has to be vacated. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment/order of the High Court under challenge is set aside.” 37. For getting benefit of pension, under Government Order dated 10.06.1989, the temporary employee is required to have, “ten years of regular service” to his credit and in the absence of the same it has to be accepted, that incumbent does not fulfill the requisite criteria of qualifying service required. 38. Term “temporary employee” is a general category, wherein incumbents are engaged as per exigencies of service, and the said general category has various sub-categories such as seasonal, causal, daily rated, ad hoc employees etc, see IDPL v. Workmen IDPL SLP NO. 3862 of 2006, 2007 (1) SCC 408 decided on 16.11.2006 by Hon’ble Apex Court and such category of temporary employees, unless and until they have to their credit “10 years of regular service” cannot be said to be eligible for grant of pension. 39. Service can be said to be “regular”, only when it is conformable to Rule, i.e. when the appointment is taken within the fold of relevant service rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution or as the case may be, the regular prescribed procedure issued by Government in respect of particular service. At this juncture the view point of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) is again also being looked into and extracted below: “16. In B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [ (1979) 3 SCR 937 ], this court clearly held that the words “regular” or “regularization” do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments. This court emphasized that when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 of the Constitution in contravention of the rules. These decisions and the principles recognized therein have not been dissented to by this Court and on principle, we see no reason not to accept the proposition as enunciated in the above decisions. We have, therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be equated with regularization. 17. We have already indicated the constitutional scheme of public employment in this country, and the executive, or for that matter the Court, in appropriate cases, would have only the right to regularize an appointment made after following the due procedure, even though a non-fundamental element of that process or procedure has not been followed. This right of the executive and that of the court, would not extend to the executive or the court being in a position to direct that an appointment made in clear violation of the constitutional scheme, and the statutory rules made in that behalf, can be treated as permanent or can be directed to be treated as permanent.” 40. ‘Regular’ or “Regularization” do not connote permanence, and are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure defects as are attributable to methodology in making appointments. It is form the date when such defects are cured the service has to be treated regular service and not at all prior to it, as requirement is of “ten years of regular service”, and non confirmation in such a situation would be of no consequence. 41. On the dictum of Apex Court, the ad-hoc service rendered cannot be kept at par with regular service and benefit of the same cannot be extended for computing ten years regular service. 41. On the dictum of Apex Court, the ad-hoc service rendered cannot be kept at par with regular service and benefit of the same cannot be extended for computing ten years regular service. On the same analogy once term “temporary employee” is of general category wherein incumbents engaged as per exigencies of service are of various sub-categories such as seasonal, causal, daily rated, ad-hoc services then the same cannot be kept at par with regular service, and once petitioner’s services had never been made regular then certainly in such a situation and in this background as petitioner continued to be daily wager employee and based upon directive issued by this Court has been asked to be treated as ad-hoc employee, and based on the same claim for regularisation has been considered, as such, no relief or reprieve could be given to him until he has to his credit “10 years of regular service”, which is per-requisite term and condition for grant of pension. 42. Once petitioner appellant’s claim has been considered under relevant service rules for extending the benefit of regularization and, thereafter, he is deemed to have been appointed in the service as per the rules in question, then his appointment in question has to be treated as a fresh/regular appointment under the relevant service rules and, accordingly, whatever conditions were applicable on the said date, the same has rightly been pressed in to service, in view of this, once petitioner appellant has been offered fresh/regular appointment, then petitioner appellant cannot claim that he should be covered by the old pension scheme and other benefits should be made available to him. 43. Petitioner appellant has also proceeded to place much emphasis on incumbents, who were similarly situation and who have been extended the aforementioned benefits and qua them it has been sought to be mentioned by the Department that they have wrongly get their fixation made and proceedings are being initiated against them. 44. Moreover, negative equality cannot be claimed and petitioner appellant should stand on his own legs. 45. Special Appeal is dismissed, accordingly.