Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 528 (ALL)

Amrit Singh v. State of U. P.

2017-02-14

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Heard Shri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to count his service from 16.4.1986 to 31.82015 for the purposes of grant of pension and other retiral dues. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis as seasonal workman vide order dated 16.4.1986, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. His services were regularized by an order dated 8.9.2016 w.e.f. 1.2.2010, Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has retired from service on 31.8.2015. Admittedly the petitioner has not completed 10 years of the regular service for the purpose of entitlement of pension and other retiral benefits. This question is no longer res integra having been settled by a Full Bench decision in the case of Babu alias Babu Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2016 (3) ADJ 149 wherein the Court has held that the period of service prior to regularization will not be counted for pensionary benefits. The relevant paragraphs 16 and 17 of the said judgment read as under: "16. We therefore hold that the period of service spent in a work charged establishment is not liable to be countenanced for the purposes of computing qualifying service. The law in this regard stands correctly declared and elucidated in Jai Prakash, Navrang Lal Srivastava and Ram Nagina. The decision in Panchu and the other judgments of this Court which have followed the line of reasoning adopted therein shall accordingly stand overruled. Before concluding, we may only refer to three judgments cited before us in support of the contention that the period of service rendered in a work-charged establishment was liable to be counted while computing qualifying service. These were (a) Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Others Vs. Bachan Singh25; (b) Amarkant Rai Vs. State of Bihar & Others26; and (c) Secretary, Minor Irrigation Deptt. & R.E.S. Vs. Narendra Kumar Tripathi27. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam was a matter which arose from a judgment rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and was again based upon the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of that High Court in Kesar Chand. Amarkant Rai dealt with the regularization of the appellant who was working on daily wages. Narendra Kumar Tripathi27. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam was a matter which arose from a judgment rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and was again based upon the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of that High Court in Kesar Chand. Amarkant Rai dealt with the regularization of the appellant who was working on daily wages. It obviously has no relevance to the issue which falls for our consideration. Similarly, Narendra Kumar Tripathi was dealing with an issue as to whether the period of service as rendered on ad hoc basis was liable to be counted for the purposes of seniority. This judgment too has no application to the issue which stands referred to this Full Bench. 17. We accordingly answer the reference by holding that the period of service spent by a person in a work charged establishment is not liable to be counted for the purposes of computing qualifying service. Regulation 370 of the Civil Service Regulations continues to govern and hold the field. The factual backdrop in which Narata Singh came to be rendered escaped the attention of the various Division Benches which followed it despite the existence of the unambiguous command of Regulation 370. Jai Prakash and the subsequent pronouncements following it and referred to above represent the correct position in law. The matter shall now be placed before the learned Single Judge for a decision on the writ petition in the light of what has been held above" Admittedly the petitioner was regularized on 1.2.2010 and retired from service on 31.8.2015. Thus he has not completed 10 years qualifying service in order to entitle him for pension. The legal position having already been settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Babu alias Babu Ram (supra) the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefits in the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.