By the Court.—The right of a person to have the period of service spent in a work charged establishment included in the total length of service for the purposes of computation of pension stood considered and authoritatively ruled upon by two Division Benches of this Court in Jai Prakash v. State of U.P. and 4 others, 2014(2) ADJ 169 and in Navrang Lal Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 others, Special Appeal No. 1306 of 2013, decided on 16 July, 2015. The Court in Jai Prakash (supra) and Navrang Lal Srivastava (supra) extensively noted the judgements rendered on the subject by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by various Benches of this Court and ultimately held that the services rendered by an employee in a work charged establishment cannot be counted for the purposes of computing the ten years qualifying service for payment of pension. The State however, is in appeal against a judgement rendered by a learned Single Judge on 11 February 2015 in terms of which the writ petition preferred by the sole respondent (original petitioner) has come to be allowed and a writ issued to the appellants herein to compute his pension and other retiral benefits after counting the service of the petitioner rendered in a work charged establishment. The learned Single Judge has directed the inclusion of the period of service rendered by the petitioner as a work charged employee to be added to his regular service for the purposes of determination of qualifying service and for a consequential consideration of his claim for pension.

2. Insofar as the State of U.P. is concerned, the provision which governs the field is Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations (Regulations) which in unambiguous terms excludes the period of service rendered by an employee in a work charged establishment while computing continuous, temporary or officiating service. The issue was dealt with in a judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Naratha Singh, (2010) 4 SCC 417. In Naratha Singh (supra), the Supreme Court dealt with a claim claim for pension consequent to the striking down of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules by a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which excluded the period of service rendered in a work charged establishment for the purposes of determining qualifying service. A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and others, had struck down rule 3.17(ii) of the Rules aforementioned, AIR 1988 P & H 265. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the aforesaid judgement of the Full Bench came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was in the above backdrop and the situation as prevailing insofar as the State of Punjab and Haryana was concerned that the service rendered by an employee in a work charged establishment was held to be added for the purposes of computing qualifying service.

3. These distinguishing features and the factual backdrop in which Naratha Singh was decided appear to have escaped the attention of earlier Benches of this Court which purported to follow Naratha Singh to hold that the period of service rendered in a work charged establishment was liable to be included for the purposes of computing qualifying service. Following the above dictum, this Court in Thakur Prasad v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Food and others, Writ-A No. 36803 of 2008, decided on 24 August, 2009, Jawahar Prasad Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 68515 of 2006 decided on 29.11.2011; Board of Revenue, Lucknow and others v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006(1) ESC 611 (All)(DB), Chedi Ram Maurya v. Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Allahabad and others, 2008 (4) AWC 3546 (LB), State of U.P. and others v. Panchu, Special Appeal Defective No. 842 of 2013 and Raj Dularey Dubey v. Public Service Tribunal Lucknow and others, SB 316 of 2011, decided on 18.4.2013, proceeded to hold that the period of service spent in a work c