By the Court.—This reference has been placed before the Full Bench consequent to a learned Single Judge forming the opinion that a “serious conflict” existed between three Division Bench decisions of the Court. The issue arises with reference to the provisions of Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations as applicable in the State of U.P. The issue is whether the period of service rendered as a work charged or a daily wage employee is liable to be counted for the purposes of computing “qualifying service” as required by Regulation 370 for the grant of pension. The judgments rendered by the Division Benches of the Court, which were noticed by the learned Single Judge, were: (a) State of U.P. and others v. Panchu, Special Appeal Defective No. 842 of 2013 decided on 2.12.2013; (b) State of U.P. and others v. Ram Nagina Lal Srivastava, 2015(8) ADJ 405 (DB); and (c) Navrang Lal Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2015(7) ADJ 655 (DB). We note that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Panchu was duly noticed and explained in Jai Prakash v. State of U.P., 2014(2) ADJ 169(DB), Ram Nagina Lal Srivastava and in Navrang Lal Srivastava and after noticing the entire body of precedent on the subject including the subsequent judgments rendered by the Supreme Court on the subject, the Division Benches held that the services rendered by an employee in a work charged establishment cannot be added for the purposes of computing qualifying service under Regulation 370. There was thus no conflict, let alone a “serious conflict”, which may have justified the reference being made to this Full Bench. We would have hoped that the subsequent judgments would have rendered a quietus to the entire controversy. However since the issue has been referred to the Full Bench we consider it appropriate to reiterate and reaffirm the principles enunciated in the subsequent judgments of the Court. A brief history and the background in which the issue itself arises.

A. STATUS OF A WORK CHARGED EMPLOYEE

2. The concept of a work charged employee, of service rendered in a work charged establishment and the distinction between regular service and service rendered in a work charge establishment has never really been in doubt in service jurisprudence. A Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh and others v. Union of India and others, (1979) 4 SCC 440. The Supreme Court explained the service rendered in a work charged establishment and its status in the following terms:

“A work-charged establishment broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to “works”. The pay and allowances of employees who are borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated cost of the work.

The entire strength of labour employed for the purposes of the Beas Project was work-charged. The work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. They do not get any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or any benefits under the Employees State Insurance Schemes.”

Jaswant Singh and the principles laid down therein came to be reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman, (1997) 2 SCC 517. Their Lordships held:

“6. A work-charged establishment as pointed out by this Court in Jaswant Singh v. Union of India, broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the wages and allowances of the staff, fare chargeable to “works”. The pay and allowances of employees who are borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated cost of the works. The work-charged employees are enga