Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—The State is in appeal assailing the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court of 5 December 2014. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by the sole respondent against an order of 25 November 2014 which had turned down his claim for grant of pension and gratuity. The order of 25 November 2014 records that the respondent had worked as a muster roll employee between the period 3 June 1989 to 28 February 2011. He was subsequently absorbed in the permanent establishment on 1 March 2011 whereafter he retired on 30 June 2014. The claim for pension and other benefits came to be turned down on account of the respondent not acquiring the requisite qualifying service essential for grant of the above benefit. The learned Single Judge relying upon earlier judgments rendered by the Court came to the conclusion that the period of service spent by the respondent as a work charged employee was liable to be included in computing qualifying service and accordingly set aside the order impugned and remitted the matter to the fourth appellant for reconsideration of the claim of the respondent. The issue canvassed before us was whether the period of service spent by the respondent in a work charged establishment was liable to be included for the purposes of computation of qualifying service. The State has urged that the period spent by an employee on a work charged establishment is not liable to be included for the purposes of computation of qualifying service bearing in mind the provisions of Rule 3 of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 (Rules) and Article 368 of the Civil Service Regulations (Regulations) as applicable in the State of U.P. Apart from the above, the appellants have contended that the various judgments relied upon by the learned Single Judge were themselves based upon an incorrect appreciation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Naratha Singh, 2010 (4) SCC 417. It has been contended that subsequent Division Benches of this Court have upon a review of the earlier judgments and the relevant provisions of the statute applicable in the State of U.P. have come to hold that the period of service rendered by an employee in a work charged establishment stands on a completely different and distinct footing and consequently cannot be added for the purposes of computing qualifying service.

2. This Court in State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secretary Irrigation and 3 others v. Ram Nagina Lal Srivastava, Speical Appeal Defective No. 497 of 2015, decided on 27 August, 2015, had an occasion to review the various judgments rendered by the Court on the above subject and upon an exhaustive review of the earlier precedents held:

“Insofar as the State of U.P. is concerned, the provision which governs the field is Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations3 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 judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Naratha Singh. 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, AIR 1988 P & H 265, had struck down Rule 3.17(ii) of the Rules aforementioned. 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