IMPORTANT POINT
Service rendered as daily wage employees must be counted towards qualifying service for pension, ensuring equal treatment under the law.

JUDGMENT :

(Vivek Chaudhary, J.) :

Heard Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Ram Pandey, Advocate appearing for respondent Jal Sansthan and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the Order dated 20.2.2020 whereby the respondent authority has refused to enroll employees of the Jal-Sansthan under the old pension scheme on the ground that they were regularized after the old pension scheme was abolished and for a prayer commanding the respondents to pay regular pension to the petitioners by counting their past services rendered on daily wage posts in the respondent-Sansthan.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as daily wage employees on class III posts in the Jal Sansthan between the years 1989-1991. They were throughout treated as regular employees and later regularized in the Jal Sansthan between 2005-2011. Counsel for the petitioners informs that some of the petitioners are already retired.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that by letter dated 30.8.2018, respondent-Jal Sansthan (Rural) has adopted U.P. Nagarpalika Non-Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Regulation, 1984 (Rules of 1984) for regulating pension of its employees. Under the same rules, petitioners are entitled to pensionary and other retirement benefits. Further submission is that same rules with regard to employees of the Nagar Palika was interpreted by this Court by its judgment dated 17.3.2023 in WRIT - A No. 10405 of 2022 (Jai Prakash v. State of U.P. and 4 others) wherein daily wager employees who were later regularised in continuation of their services were held entitled for benefits of the Old Pension Scheme. He has further relied on a judgment by a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2019) 10 SCC 516, where it was held that services rendered before regularization must be counted for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment in the case of Prem Singh (supra) reads:

''8. We first consider the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 (for short 'the 1961 Rules'). Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules which contains the provisions in respect of qualifying service is extracted hereunder:

''3. In these rules, unless is anything repugnant in the subject or context-

(1)-(7) * * *

(8) 'Qualifying service' means service which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Civil Services Regulations:

Provided that continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post except-

(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment;

(ii) periods of service in a work-charged establishment; and

(iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies shall also count as qualifying service.

Note. If service rendered in a non-pensionable establishment work-charged establishment or in a post paid from contingencies falls between two periods of temporary service in a pensionable establishment or between a period of temporary service and permanent service in a pensionable establishment, it will not constitute an interruption of service.

9. Regulations 361, 368 and 370 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services Regulations are also relevant. They are extracted hereunder:

''361. The service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions:

First - The service must be under Government.

Second - The employment must be substantive and permanent.''

These three conditions are fully explained in the following Regulations.

''368. Service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment.

370. Continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confi