Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

The petitioner was appointed on 11.5.1984 as a Sample Collector on work charge establishment in the department of respondent No. 3. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that the services of the petitioner have been regularised on 15.6.2011. The petitioner attained age of superannuation on 31st December, 2011. Now the petitioner is seeking the direction to the respondents to pay the post retiral benefits including the pension. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed relief No. (A) and has submitted that the period during which the petitioner has served as a work charge employee may be considered for the purposes of pension and other post retiral benefits.

2. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the period during which the petitioner served as a work charged employee cannot be calculated for the purposes of pension in view of Regulation 370 of Civil Services Regulation. In support of contention, he relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bansh Gopal v. State of U.P., 2006 (3) ESC 2248 (All)(DB) and in the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Pratap Shukla, 2008 (3) ESC 2123, which has been followed by the learned Single Judge in a recent judgment in the case of Shri Rama Shankar Pandey (Seenchpal) v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(4) ESC 1970 (All) : 2013(8) ADJ 52 (NOC) and other connected writ petitions.

3. I have considered rival submissions, perused the record as well as the decisions on the point.

4. The issue, whether the services rendered as the work charge employee may be included for the purposes of computation of the pension, is no more res integra.

Regulation 370 of Civil Service Regulation reads as under:

“370. Continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruptions by confirmation in the same or any other post shall qualify 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 form contingencies.”

5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bansh Gopal v. State of U.P. and others (Supra) has held that Regulation 370 of Civil Service Regulation has expressly excluded the services rendered in the work charge establishment for the purposes of computation of the pension. Paragraphs 17 & 18 of the Judgement are being reproduced below:

“17. The Regulation 370 as quoted above expressly excluded the services rendered in work-charge establishment for purposes of pension. Fundamental Rule 56 (e) on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellant does not help the appellant in the present case. Rule 56 (e) requires retiring pension to be paid in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules. Fundamental Rule 56 (e) is quoted as below:

“56 (e) A retiring pension shall be payable and other retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rule.”

18.The relevant rules for payment of pension are contained in Civil Services Regulation. There is nothing inconsistent between Fundamental Rule 56 and Regulation 370 so as to not follow Regulation 370. According to Regulation 370, the services rendered by appellant in work-charge establishment does not qualify for purposes of pension.

19. The appellant’s case is also not covered by the Government Order dated 1.7.1989. The Government Order required that pension shall be payable also to temporary employee who have rendered at least 10 years of regular service. The appellant cannot be said to have rendered 10 years regular service since he was