WPSS/932/2013 of Kanhaya Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER

WPSS No.932/13

Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the

petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, S.C., for the State.

Petitioner has been denied pension purportedly on the ground that the work-charge period rendered by him cannot be considered as qualifying service. Respondents have also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (1) U.D. 6 ‘Madan Mohan Chaudhary v. State of Uttaranchal & others’. The question raised in this petition is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex 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:-

judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2011 (1) U.D. 6 ‘Madan Mohan Chaudhary v. State of Uttaranchal & others’.

“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.”

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned Annexure is quashed and set-aside. Respondents are directed to release and pay the pensionary/retrial benefits to the petitioner by counting the services rendered by him on work-charge capacity towards qualifying service within ten weeks from today.

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

Rdang

(Rajiv Sharma, J.) 06.04.2018