Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The appellant has filed this intra Court appeal challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 3.3.2011 passed by the Writ Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43822 of 2008, Bhuneshar Rai v. The State of U.P. and others, whereby the aforesaid writ petition had been dismissed.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant was working in work charge establishment as Chaukidar/helper since 26.6.1976 and continued to work as such till 30.4.2006. The proceedings for regularization was initiated by the respondents in April, 2006. The Executive Engineer issued letter dated 18.4.2006 directing the appellant to produce the certificates of educational qualification etc. for considering his case for regularization on 25.4.2006 so that formality could be completed. He retired on attaining age of superannuation on 30.4.2006.

4. It is contended that appellant ought to have been regularized in April, 2006 and that his entire services from 26.6.1976 be counted for his pension and other retiral benefits.

5. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh, 2010-Laws (SC)-2-40, which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mohd. Mustafa v. State of U.P., 2010(1) ADJ 329 (LB). holding that where the petitioner has put in 23 years of service including 113 months and 11 days i.e. 9 years 5 months & 11 days of regular service then denial of pension for not having completed 10 years of regular service, was not proper. In that case, the Court directed the respondents to grant pensionary benefit to the petitioner considering him to have completed 10 years of regular service and pay him regularly every month from the date of retirement. The State of U.P. preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment in re: Mohd. Mustafa v. State of U.P. (Special Appeal Defective No. 254 of 2013), State of U.P. and others v. Prem Chandra and others, wherein the Court relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Punjab Electricity Board (supra) vide its judgment dated 13.5.2013 held that the provisions of regulation 370 of the U.P. Civil Service Regulation have to be read down in line with the judgment of the Apex Court. Aggrieved, the State of U.P. preferred SLP (Civil) No. CC 22271 of 2013, State of U.P. and others v. Prem Chandra and others, before the Apex Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 7.1.2014.

6. We may also refer to the judgments rendered in the cases of Board of Revenue and others v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyaya, 2006(1) ESC 611 (All)(DB) and Bansh Gopal v. State of U.P., 2006(6) ADJ 384 (DB).

7. Learned Standing counsel does not dispute this legal position but contends that the appellant’s case is not covered by the Government Order dated 1.7.89 which required that pension shall be payable also to temporary employee who have rendered at least 10 years of regular service; that the appellant cannot be said to have rendered 10 years regular service since he was taken into regular service from work-charge establishment only by order dated 12.10.1999 and he retired on 21.5.2005.

8. Before considering the case laws we may reproduce the G.O. dated 1.7.1989.

“vLFkk;h lsodksa gsrq isa'kujh ykHk

mRrj izns'k ljdkj

la0 lk& 3&1152@nl&915@89

foRr ¼lkekU;½ vuqHkkx&3 y[kuÅ fnukad% 1 tqykbZ 1989

dk;kZyd&Kki

fo"k;& vLFkk;h ljdkjh lsodksa dh lsok fuo`Rr@eqR;q ij isa'kujh ykHkksa dh vuqeU;rkA

mi;qZDr fo"k; ij v/kksgLrk{kjh dks ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd flfoy lfoZl jsxqys'ku ds vuqPNsn 368 dh O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj jkT; ljdkj ds vUrxZr dh x;h lsok isa'ku gsrq rc rd vgZ ugh ekuh tkrh gS tc rd fd ljdkjh lsod fdlh in ij LFkk;h u gks x;k gksA ljdkjh lsodksa ds ;Fkk le; LFkk;hdj.k fd;s tkus gsrq ‘kklu ds fo|eku v