SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 1044

ARUN MISHRA, S.ABDUL NAZEER, M.R.SHAH
PREM SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the parties :V. K. Shukla, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Manohar Pratap, Varun Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aparna Singh, Kuldeep Rai, Manohar Pratap, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, Adv. Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Anand Vardhan Maitreya, Satish Kumar, Ajit Singh Pundir, Arijeet Singh, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Umme S., Adv. (Appearance slip not legible) Aditya Giri, Abhishek Singh, Ajay Vikram Singh, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Kamlesh Anand, Ankur Yadav, Aakash Kumar, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Mrs. Manju Singh, Tarun Verma, Atul Sharma, R. K. Pandey, Mukesh K. Giri, Harish Chandra Pant, Shoaib Ahmad Khan, Sandeep Garausa, Anis Ahmed Khan, Anand Mishra, Amrendra Kumar Singh, Ravindra S. Garia, Shashank Singh, Adv. Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Deepak Mishra, R.P. Bansal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Ms. Namita Choudhary, Ms. Srishti Khurana, Vikas Negi, Jaswant Singh Rawat, Vikas Negi,Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, Ms. Preeti Singh, Himanshu Tyagi, Farrukh Rasheed, Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, B. K. Pal, S. K. Verma, Sanjeev Malhotra, S. R. Setia, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. The question involved in the present matters is whether Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 (in short “Rules of 1961”) and Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulation of Uttar Pradesh should be struck down having regard to the fact that this Court has upheld the decision regarding pari materia provision enacted in the State of Punjab which excluded computation of the period of work-charged services from qualifying service for pension. This Court has affirmed the decision of the High Court of State of Punjab and Haryana rendered in Kesar Singh v. the State of Punjab, AIR 1988 Punjab and Haryana 265.

2. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the matter to be considered by a larger bench. Hence the matter is before us.

3. The facts are being narrated from Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (C.A. No.________of 2019 @ SLP (Civil) No.4371 of 2011). The appellant was appointed as a Welder in the year 1965 in a work-charged establishment (Ram Ganga River Valley Project, Kalagarh). He was transferred from one place to another and thereafter ultimately the Selection Committee recommended for regularization of his services. His services we

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top