SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(UK) 691

2011 (1) U.D. 6
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Hon’ble Justice Tarun Agarwala, Dharam Veer, Prafulla C. Pant, J.J
Madan Mohan Chaudhary ...…………. Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttaranchal ...…………. Respondents
Writ Petition No. 284 of 2004 (S/B)
Decided on : 08.10.2010

Advocates Appeared:
Manoj Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General, along with Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Addl. Advocate General, present for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents No. 1, 3 and 5.
Mrs. Bina Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., present for respondents No. 2 and 4.

The main legal point established is the interpretation of the Government Order and Civil Service Regulations regarding pension entitlement for temporary and work-charged employees.

Headnote:

Government Order - Interpretation of Pensionary Benefits for Temporary Employees - Article 368, 361, 370, 465, 468 of Civil Service Regulations - The court interpreted the Government Order dated 1st July 1989 and its applicability to work-charge employees. It discussed the conditions for qualifying service, the exclusion of work-charged establishment service, and the entitlement to pensionary benefits for temporary employees with ten years of regular service.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner, a work-charge employee, sought pensionary benefits after being regularized. The court analyzed the applicability of the Government Order dated 1st July 1989 and the interpretation of Civil Service Regulations regarding qualifying service and pension entitlement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Government Order recognized the status of temporary employees on regular posts for pensionary benefits, but it did not apply to work-charged employees. The court held that the Division Bench's interpretation in a related case was incorrect.

Issues: Interpretation of Government Order for Pensionary Benefits, Applicability to Work-Charged Employees, Qualifying Service for Pension Entitlement

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Government Order, Civil Service Regulations, and precedents regarding the status of temporary and work-charged employees for pension entitlement.

Final Decision: The court answered the referred question in the negative, concluding that the Government Order did not apply to work-charged employees and disagreed with the Division Bench's interpretation in the related case.

JUDGMENT :

A Division Bench of this court, in Writ Petition No. 284 (S/B) of 2004, Madan Mohan Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, has referred following question to the Larger Bench, constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice:-

Whether, the Government Order dated 1st July 1989, referred in the judgment of the Division Bench (in Special Appeal No. 225 of 2008, State of U.P. and another Vs. Pitamber Dutt Sanwal, arisen out of Writ Petition No. 843 (S/S) of 2003) applies to work-charge employees, or not?


2) Brief facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 843 (S/S) of 2003, Pitamber Dutt Sanwal Vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on 24.07.2008 by this court, were that the writ petitioner of said case was appointed as Driver on work-charge basis on 04.10.1977, in Jamrani Bandh Project under Irrigation Department of State of Uttar Pradesh. He rendered his service as such till 27.05.1995, where after he was regularized and brought under regular establishment. He retired on attaining age of superannuation on 31.05.2000. He filed Writ Petition No. 843 (S/S) of 2003, directing respondent No. 2 Executive Engineer, Ban Sagar Nahar, Nirman Khand –6, Mirzapur to pay amount of provident fund, insurance, pension and other pensionary benefits with interest. Learned Single Judge of this court vide his judgment and order dated 24.07.2008, following the judgment and order dated 03.03.2006, passed in Special Appeal No. 93 of 2004, State of U.P., through Engineer-In-Chief, Public Works Department, Lucknow and another Vs. Anand Singh, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent No. 2 of said writ petition to release the pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 24.07.2008, State of U.P., and Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department of said State filed Special Appeal No. 225 of 2008. A Division Bench of this court decided said appeal vide its order dated 27.04.2010, whereby it dismissed the appeal holding that Government Order dated 01.07.1989, issued by State of U.P., shall be applicable to the writ petitioner of said case (Pitamber Dutt Sanwal), as he stood to have rendered ten years service on temporary basis. The contention of the appellants that only the period from 27.05.1995 (date of regularization) to 31.05.2000 (date of superannuation) was the period to be considered as regular service (which was less than ten years) was not accepted by the Division Bench of this court. When said judgment and order dated 27.04.2010, passed in Special Appeal No. 225 of 2008, was referred by present writ petitioner Madan Mohan Chaudhary in Writ Petition No. 284 (S/B) of 2004 before the Division Bench, the Division Bench hearing the writ petition felt that it was not in a position to follow the aforesaid judgment, and referred the matter to the larger bench for answering the question, quoted above.


3. Since, the answer to the question involves interpretation of the Government Order dated 1st July 1989, we think it just and proper to quote the Government Order. The same reads as under:

“mRRkj izns’k ljdkj

foRr ¼lkekU;½ vuqHkkx&3

Lka0 % Lkk0&3&1152@nl&915@89

Yk[kuÅ % fnukad 1 tqykbZ] 1989

dk;kZy; Kki

fo"k; % vLFkk;h ljdkjh lsodksa dh lsok fuo`fRr @e`R;q ij isU’kujh ykHkksa dh vuqeU;rkA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr fo"k; ij v/kksgLrk{kjh dks ;g dgus dk fuZns’k gqvk gS fd flfoy lfoZl jsxqys’kUl ds vuqPNsn 368 dh O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj jkT; ljdkj ds vUrZxr dh x;h lsok isa’ku gsrq rc rd vgZ ugh 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 ds ckotwn dqN ekeyksa esa izfdz;k lEcU/kh vis{kk;sa iwjh u gks ikus ds dkj.k lEcfU/kr deZpkjh LFkk;h gq, fcuk gh vf/ko"kZrk ij lsok fuo`Rr gks tkrs gS ftlls mUgs isU’kuh; ykHk] vuqeU; ugha gks ikrs gSA

2& mijksDrkuqlkj vLFkk;h jgrs gq, lsok fuo`Rr 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



































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top