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

2018 Supreme(SC) 1665

S.A.BOBDE, L.NAGESWARA RAO
Ram Deo Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.D. Upadhyay, Mr. G.G. Upadhyay, Mr. U.K. Shandilya, Ms. Asha Upadhyay, Mohd. Shahid Hussain, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Mr. Siddhant S Malik, Adv.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal (defective) No. 24/16, dated 22.01.2016, whereby the High Court has denied relief to the appellant on the ground that there is no Rule or Scheme framed by the State to count the period when the employee worked on a work-charged basis.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (C.A. No. 10806/2017) and connected matters, where this Court has held that the period of work-charged service must be reckoned for the purpose of computation of 'qualifying service' for grant of pension. We are in respectful agreement with the afore-mentioned decision.

4. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to compute the pension of the appellant after taking into account the period of work-charged service.

5. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

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