The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of work-charged employees to pensionary benefits and the legal principle that pension is a valuable right and property, warranting prompt disbursement and penalizing any delay with the payment of interest at the current market rate.

Heard Sri C.O. Bahuguna, counsel for the petitioner and Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay pension and other post retiral dues to the petitioner with effect from the date of her retirement on superannuation with interest @12 per annum.

3. Briefly stated Initially the petitioner was appointed in Class IV as Chaukidar/Sevika on 28-6-1980 on temporary basis against the substantive and vacant post in Kanya Junior High School, Kaladhungi, District Nainital. After completing five years service she made an application to the Distrlct Basic Education Officer, Nainital for confirming her on the class IV Post but the District Basic Education Officer did not pay any heed to the request made by the petitioner., On 19-9-1981, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nainital, directed the petitioner to complete her service book falling which leave' will not be permissible to her. The petitioner on 31-12-1988 sent an application to the Education Superintendent, Nagar Kshetra, Nainltal and submitted that she has been working in the department for the last several years but she has not been made permanent on' the post held by her. Further she also submitted application on 4-5-1990., The petitioner has submitted that the Director of Education Basic and the Chairman, Basic Education Board, Allahabad, Issued an order on 24-8-1995 In which it was provided that Class IV employees working in the Basic Schools on fixed pay of Rs. 750/- may , be absorbed/adjusted against vacant and substantive post on regular pay scale of 750-940. Similar order was Issued on 4-10-1995 by the Department of Basic Education for absorbing/adjusting Class IV employees In regular, pay scale. Pursuant' to that order the Education Superintendent, Nagar Kshetra, Nainital vide order dated 17-10-1995 granted her regular pay scale .. and she was posted in Basic School, Sher-ka-Danda, Nainital. She has retired from Class IV post on' 1-102001 after superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has completed qualifying service which entitled her for pension 'but the respondents have not paying her pension despite several requests made by her.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It has been mentioned in the counter affidavit that since the petitioner did not serve for continuous 10 years in a regular service, she was not found entitled to the payment of pension as per the relevant rules.

5. The petitioner was initially appointed on 28-6-1980 on .fixed, pay. She was continued working as Class IV employee on minimum pay scale till 1-10-1995 when she was made regular. She retired from service on 1-10-2001 after supperannuation. Thus she has completed 20 years continuous service as class IV employee in the respondent Department. The service rendered, by 'the petitioner as temporary employee getting fixed pay at minimum of the pay scale, cannot be excluded for counting her total service for the purpose of pensionary and other service benefits.

6. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 20-4-2004 of this Court in the case Anand Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal & others W.P. No. 393 (5/5) of 2004, wherein after relying upon the case of Santosh Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. others (2002) 1 UPLBEC 337, pensionary benefits were granted to the petitioner and it has been held as under:

"The Apex Court was considering the Scheme and the status of a work charge employee even after being confirmed it has been held that a workcharge employee after confirmation does not cease to be a work charge employee and he continues to be a workcharge employee. The question of regularisation against a regular vacancy was not in issue before the Apex Court. No rule, law of any Government Order has been brought to the notice of this Court by the State to indicate that any terminal benefits have been provided to the workcharge employee ind