By the Court.—This Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment dated 23 July 2013 of a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ-A No. 32312 of 2011 filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The said writ petition was filed with a prayer that the provisions contained in Clause (ii) of Article 370 of Civil Services Regulations (the Regulations), insofar as it denies service rendered in a work charged establishment to be computed as qualifying service for pension, be declared arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A further relief that was claimed in the writ petition was that the order dated 29 October 2010 passed by the Executive Engineer, Rihand Dam Construction Division, Sonbhadra rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for adding the period of service rendered by him in a work charged establishment for pension, should be set aside.

3. The learned Judge did not accept the plea of the writ petitioner for the reason that there was no pleading to substantiate his claim that the service rendered in a work charged establishment can be placed at par with the service rendered in a regular establishment and all that was relied upon by learned counsel for the writ petitioner during the course of the argument was the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Naratha Singh, (2010) 4 SCC 417. The learned Judge has observed that the said decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board (supra), on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the writ petitioner, would be of no benefit to the writ petitioner.

4. The writ petitioner was initially engaged as a Pump Operator in a work charged establishment on 1 July 1978 in Kanhar Construction Division on a consolidated pay of Rs. 220/-. He was appointed in the regular establishment in the office of the Executive Engineer on the post of Meth with effect from 31 March 2000 and ultimately retired on 30 January 2010. Pension was not paid to the writ petitioner as he had completed only nine years, nine month and twenty-one days in the regular establishment as against the requirement of ten years. The period during which the writ petitioner worked in the work charged establishment was not added to the length of service in the regular establishment in view of the provision of Article 370(ii) of the Regulations which provides that period of service rendered in a work charged establishment shall not qualify for pension.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board (supra) and in view of the decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Prem Chandra and others, Special Appeal Defective No. 264 of 2013, decided on 13th May, 2013; Bhuneshwar Rai v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(9) ADJ 4 (DB); and State of U.P. and others v. Panchu, Special Appeal Defective No. 842 of 2013, decided on 2nd December, 2013, the length of service rendered by the appellant in the work charged establishment from 1 July 1978 to 31 March 2000 deserves to be added for payment of pension and Article 370 of the Regulations has to be read down to this extent.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered on 9 January 2014 in Jai Prakash v. State of U.P.and others(1), 2014 (2) ADJ 169 and the decision of the Supreme Court rendered on 5 September 2014 in Jai Prakash v. State of U.P.(2), Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12648 of 2014, decided on 16th July, 2015. Learned Standing Counsel has also pointed out that against the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in Panchu (supra), the State of Uttar Pradesh filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7222 of 2014 which was decided by the Supreme Court on 28 October 2014 holding that the imp