WPSS/546/2010 of NITYANAND PATHAK Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and OTHERS

WPSS No. 546 of 2010Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the State.

The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of “Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”, decided on 23.08.2017. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:-

“6. The pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules had been struck down by Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab and ors. 1 The challenge by the State against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was negatived by this Court. The matter came up for consideration before this Court, once again, in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and anr. vs. Narata Singh and anr.2. While dealing with the said question this Court in paragraph 25 of the report held that the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was perfectly justified in striking down Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in the said Rules between 'temporary and officiating service' and 'work-charged service'. On the said basis, this Court took the view that the period of work-charged service should be reckoned for purposes of computation of 'qualifying service' for grant of pension.

7. As already observed, the provisions of Rule 370 of the Civil Service Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakhand are pari materia with the provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, discussed above. If that is so, we do not see as to why the period of service rendered on work-charged basis by the appellants should not be counted for purposes of computation of 'qualifying service' for grant of pension. The pari materia provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules having been interpreted and understood in the above manner by this Court in Narata Singh (supra) we do not find any room for taking any other view except to hold that the appellants are entitled to reckon the period of work-charged service for purposes of computation of 'qualifying service' for grant of pension. We order accordingly; allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court.”

Respondent-State have also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (1) U.D. 6.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and the respondents are directed to count the petitioner’s service rendered by him in work-charge capacity towards qualifying service and release the pension within period of ten weeks from today.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

NISHANT

(Rajiv Sharma, J.) 13.03.2018