[Per : Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J., (Oral)]

1. The respondent remained employed as a Driver in the Army Service Corps (Military Transport) from 7.11.1962 to 20.4.1969.

2. After his discharge from Army service, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the respondent was inducted as a Driver in the Department of Irrigation on work charge basis with effect from 4.10.1977. He continued to render service as such till 27.5.1995. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, on 27.5.1995 the respondent was brought on the regular establishment. While on the regular establishment, the respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2000.

3. Based on the facts depicted in the foregoing paragraph, the respondent approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 843 of 2003 seeking retrial benefits. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the aforesaid Writ Petition on 24.7.2008.

4. Through the instant special appeal, the appellants have assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 24.7.2008 disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 843 of 2003.

5. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is based on a Government Order issued by the composite State of Uttar Pradesh dated 1.7. 1989. Relevant part of the aforesaid order is being reproduced hereunder :-

ßfo’k;% vLFkk;h ljdkjh lsodksaa dh lsok fuo`fÙk@e`R;q ij isU”kujh ykHkksa dh vuqeU;rkA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr fo’k; ij v/kksgLrk{kjh dks ;g dgus dk funsZ”k gqvk gS fd flfoy lfoZl jsxqys”kUl ds vuqPNsn 368 dh O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj jkT; ljdkj ds vUrxZr dh x;h lsok isU”ku gsrq rc rd vgZ ugha ekuh tkrh gS tc rd fd ljdkjh lsod fdlh in ij LFkk;h u gks x;k gksA ljdkjh lsodksa ds ;Fkk le; LFkk;hdj.k fd;s tkus gsrq “kklu ds fo|eku vkns”kksa dss ckotwn dqN ekeyksa esa izfØ;k lEcU/kh vis{kk;sa iwjh u gks ikus ds dkj.k lEcfUèkr deZpkjh LFkk;h gq, fcuk gh vf/ko’kZrk ij lsok fuo`Ùk gks tkrs gSa ftlls mUgsa isU”kuh; ykHk vuqeU; ugha gks ikrs gSaA

2- mijksDrkuqlkj vLFkk;h jgrs gq, lsok fuo`Ùk gks tkus ds dkj.k ljdkjh lsodksa dks gksus okyh dfBukb;ksa dks nwj fd;s tkus dk iz”u dkQh le; ls “kklu ds fopkjk/khu jgk gS vkSj lE;d fopkjksijkUr jkT;iky egksn; us lg’kZ ;g vkns”k iznku fd;s gSa fd ,sls ljdkjh lsodksa dks ftUgksaus de ls de 10 o’kZ dh fu;fer lsok iw.kZ dj yh gks] vf/ko’kZrk ij lsok fuo`Ùk gksus vFkok l{ke fpfdRlk izkf/kdkjh }kjk vkxs lsok djus gsrq iw.kZr;k v{ke ?kksf’kr dj fn;s tkus ij vf/ko’kZrk@v”kDrrk isU”ku lsok fuo`fÙk xszP;qVh rFkk ikfjokfjd isa”ku mlh izdkj Lo;a mUgha njksa ij ns; gksxh tSlh fd LFkk;h deZpkfj;ksa dks mUgha ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa laxr fu;eksa ds vUrxZr vuqeU; gksrh gSAÞ

Based on the extracted part of the order dated 1.7.1989, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the respondent had not rendered 10 years’ service on the regular establishment, and as such, was not entitled to retrial benefits. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the service rendered by the respondent from 27.5.1995 to 31.5.2000 alone was liable to be taken into consideration for the release of the retrial benefits to the respondent.

6. We have considered the solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not possible for us to accept the interpretation placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the Government Order dated 1.7.1989. Not only the subject of the aforesaid Government Order, but also, paragraph 1 thereof is clear and unambiguous to the effect that the aforesaid Government Order is applicable for grant/release of retrial benefits including pension to temporary employees, who were not regular prior to attaining the age of superannuation. It is, therefore, apparent that temporary service rendered by an employee under the aforesaid Government Order dated 1.7.1989 was liable to be taken into consideration while determining the right of an employee to pensionary and other post-retiral benefits. Thus viewed, it is apparent that the service render