By the Court.—This writ petition seeks to challenge the validity of Regulation 370 (I) and (II) of the U.P. Civil Service Regulations and a further claim for the computation of past daily wage services has been made so as to qualify the minimum requirement of 10 years’ service for the purpose of payment of pension. In so far as the validity of Regulation 370 is concerned, it is to be noted that the same has been questioned on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, however, the plea has not been dealt with in the writ petition on the strength of any cogent reasoning or justification except by making a reference to the Full Bench judgement rendered by Punjab & Haryana High Court in AIR 1988 P&H 265.

2. At the outset we may note the position of law and the view expressed in a Full Bench judgement of this Court rendered in Babu @ Babu Ram v. State of U.P., 2016(3) ADJ 149 (FB), as regards the computation of past services rendered by an employee in a work charge establishment and the opinion so expressed for ready reference may be extracted as under:

“We accordingly conclude that the judgments of this Court which proceeded to follow Narata Singh failed to bear in mind the distinguishing features of the statutory regime in the backdrop of which it came to be delivered. As noted above, Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules had been struck down. The absence of Rule 3.17(ii) from the statute book formed the bedrock upon which Narata Singh was decided. Significantly, Regulation 370 continues to govern the field and in clear and unambiguous terms provides that the period of service rendered in a work charged establishment is liable to be excluded while computing qualifying service.

We therefore hold that the period of service spent in a work charged establishment is not liable to be countenanced for the purposes of computing qualifying service. The law in this regard stands correctly declared and elucidated in Jai Prakash, Navrang Lal Srivastava and Ram Nagina. The decision in Panchu and the other judgments of this Court which have followed the line of reasoning adopted therein shall accordingly stand overruled.

Before concluding, we may only refer to three judgments cited before us in support of the contention that the period of service rendered in a work-charged establishment was liable to be counted while computing qualifying service. These were (a) Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others v. Bachan Singh 25; (b) Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar and others 26; and (c) Secretary, Minor Irrigation Deptt. & R.E.S. v. Narendra Kumar Tripathi 27. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam was a matter which arose from a judgment rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and was again based upon the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of that High Court in Kesar Chand. Amarkant Rai dealt with the regularization of the appellant who was working on daily wages. It obviously has no relevance to the issue which falls for our consideration. Similarly, Narendra Kumar Tripathi was dealing with an issue as to whether the period of service as rendered on ad hoc basis was liable to be counted for the purposes of seniority. This judgment too has no application to the issue which stands referred to this Full Bench.

We accordingly answer the reference by holding that the period of service spent by a person in a work charged establishment is not liable to be counted for the purposes of computing qualifying service. Regulation 370 of the Civil Service Regulations continues to govern and hold the field. The factual backdrop in which Narata Singh came to be rendered escaped the attention of the various Division Benches which followed it despite the existence of the unambiguous command of Regulation 370. Jai Prakash and the subsequent pronouncements following it and referred to above represent the correct position in law. The matter shall now be placed before the learned Single Judge for a decision on the writ petition in t