IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that legislative changes can supersede judicial interpretations regarding pension eligibility.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-Vide order dated November 15, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge the issue as to whether work charge service rendered by an employee could be included in their regular service for the purpose of pension, was referred to be heard by a Larger Bench. The order dated 15.11.2017 reads as under :

''By present writ petitions, petitioners have claimed that their services as Workcharge employees should be included in their regular services for the purposes of pension.

Reliance is placed on Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Punjab Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and others, (2010) 4 SCC 317.

Reliance is also placed on Judgment and order dated 23rd August, 2017 passed by Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10806 of 2017, Habib Khan v. State of Uttarakhand and others.

Findings of both the aforesaid judgments are in favour of petitioners. However, with regard to State of U.P., Division Bench of this Court by Judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2017, passed in a Bunch of Writ Petitions leading case being Writ Petition 20486 (M/B) of 2016, Krishna Kumar and 27 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag and 5 others, has taken a different view and rejected petitioners' claim relying upon earlier Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Babu Ram v. State of U.P. and others, (2016) 34 LCD 1132. A large number of employees are affected by this controversy.

In view of aforesaid later decision of Apex Court in the matter arising out of State of Uttarakhand in the case of Habib Khan (Supra), which is also a matter relating to Regulation 370 of U.P. Civil Services Regulations of State of U.P. which are adopted in State of Uttarakhand, it would be appropriate that present controversy is decided by a larger Bench of this Court. Hence, records of all these writ petitions be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice/Hon'ble the Senior Judge for appropriate orders.''

2. Subsequent to the aforesaid reference, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the Case of Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2019 (10) SCC 516, while interpreting Rule 3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, opined that work charge service is to be counted towards pension.

3. After the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court the State of Uttar Pradesh has enacted the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (The Act of 2021) defining qualifying service for pension. It only includes the services rendered by the Officer appointed on temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of Service Rules prescribed by the State Government.

4. The aforesaid Act has been given effect from April 01, 1961. In view of the aforesaid Act, the issue involved in the present case will not survive.

5. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that validity of the aforesaid Act has been challenged in a bunch of petitions, the lead Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 23912 (MB) of 2020.

6. In view of the aforesaid enactment, the relief claimed for by the petitioner in the bunch of petitions may not survive, as the same will depend on the result of the petition challenging vires of the Act of 2021. There is no need to go into the issues referred to be considered by the larger Bench. The petitioners also, if so advised, may challenge the vires of the Act of 2021.

7. Any observation made in this order will not effect the controversy to be examined by this Court while hearing the challenge made to the validity of the 2021 Act.

8. All the petitions are thus disposed of in the aforesaid terms.