By the Court.—Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri G.C. Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel for appellants-respondents in these two appeals and Sri Ramanuj Pandey, learned Counsel for Ram Pratap Shukla and Sri B.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for Sita Ram.

2. These two special appeals raise similar question of facts and law, hence both are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Special Appeal No. 1338 of 2006 has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27th March, 2006, whereby the writ petition No. 43128 of 2003 filed by respondent, Ram Pratap Shukla has been allowed.

4. Brief facts necessary for deciding the case of Ram Pratap Shukla are that he was appointed on 20th December, 1976 as helper in the work-charged Department of Irrigation Department of U.P. His services were regularised in the year 1993. He continued to work as regular employee and retired on 31st July, 2002.

5. A claim was raised by Ram Pratap Shukla for payment of pension. The said claim was rejected by the department concerned taking the view that the period during which the petitioner, Ram Pratap Shukla worked in work-charged Establishment cannot be added and from the date of regularization he had not completed the qualifying service of 10 years necessary for payment of pension. Feeling aggrieved by the same, Ram Pratap Shukla filed the aforesaid writ petition, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27th March, 2006. The order of the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Allahabad Division, Allahabad dated 31st January, 2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been quashed. The respondents-appellants have been directed to pay pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

6. Special Appeal No. (950) of 2007 has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19th May, 2006, whereby writ petition No. 26212 of 2002 filed by respondent, Sita Ram has been allowed.

7. Brief facts necessary for deciding the case of Sita Ram are that he was appointed in the year 1961 as a Pump Operator in the work-charged Establishment of Irrigation Department of U.P. His services were regularized under order dated 6th February, 1994. He continued to work as regular employee and retired on 31st March, 1996.

8. A claim was raised by Sita Ram for payment of pension. The claim of Sita Ram was rejected by the Department on identical plea as in the case of Ram Pratap Shukla referred to above. Feeling aggrieved by the same, Sita Ram filed aforesaid writ petition No. 26212 of 2002, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 19th May, 2006. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has directed the respondents-appellants to pay the pensionary and other retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order of the Court along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of entitlement till the date of payment.

9. Learned Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants challenging the judgment and orders dated 27th March, 2006 and dated 9th May, 2006 impugned in the aforesaid two appeals, contends that the respondents-petitioners were initially appointed in the work-charged Establishment in the years 1974 and 1961 respectively, they were regularised in the year 1993 and 1994 respectively. It is further contended that after regularization, they did not compete ten years of regular service. Hence according to the Government Order dated 1st July, 1989, they were not entitled to benefit of pension. It is further contended that the respondents-petitioners were working in the work-charged Establishment and by virtue of Regulation 370 of Civil Services Regulations, such period of working being non-pensionable cannot be added nor any benefit of pe