By the Court.—A learned Judge of this Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 26736 of 2012 that was filed by the appellant for quashing the order dated 3 May 2011 which denied benefit of the service rendered by the appellant in a work charged establishment for computing the qualifying service for grant of pension as the learned Judge had earlier rejected such a contention in the judgment rendered on 31 July 2013 in Writ Petition No. 2387 of 2011 (Shri Rama Shankar Pandey [Seenchpal] v. State of U.P. and others). It is against this order of dismissal of the writ petition that the present Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

2. In Shri Rama Shankar Pandey (supra), the learned Judge held that the service rendered in a work charged establishment does not qualify for grant of pension in view of the provisions of Article 370(ii) of the Civil Service Regulations as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. For arriving at this conclusion, reliance was placed on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Pavan Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (8) ADJ 664 and several decisions of the Supreme Court which explained the nature of appointment of work charged employees.

3. Article 370 of the Civil Service Regulations, as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, provides that continuous, temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interpretations by confirmation in the same or any other post shall qualify for pension except;

(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non-pensionable establishment;

(ii) periods of service in work charged establishment; and

(iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies.

Thus, on a plain reading of the provision of Article 370, it is clear that the period of service in a work charged establishment cannot be counted for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for grant of pension.

The appellant did not challenge the vires of Article 370(ii) of the Civil Service Regulations in the writ petition.

4. What transpires from the records is that the appellant was initially appointed in a work charged establishment on 1 October 1982 and was subsequently given appointment on a regular basis with effect from 5 January 1996. The appellant retired on 30 September 2006 and then filed a representation for fixing his pension by giving him the benefit of the period of service rendered by him in the work charged establishment. When the representation was not decided, he filed Writ Petition No. 73886 of 2012 which was disposed of on 21 December 2010 with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim in accordance with law. The representation filed by the appellant was rejected by the order dated 3 May 2011 which was assailed by the appellant in the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and another, (2010) 4 SCC 317, to support his contention that the period during which the appellant worked in the work charged establishment should also be included while computing the qualifying service for the purpose of payment of pension.

6. A perusal of the said judgment of the Supreme Court shows that Rule 3.17(i) of the Punjab Electricity Service Rules, which also excluded the period of service rendered in a work charged establishment for the purpose of determining the qualifying service, had earlier been struck down by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chandra v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1988 P & H 265 and the Special Leave Petition filed to assail the said judgment had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court held that the service in work charged establishments under the State Government qualified for grant of pension under the Rules.

7. Article 370(ii) of the Civil Service Re