Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 746
Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal
J.C.S. Rawat, V.K. Maheshwari and D.K. Kotia, JJ.
Baldev Singh Jagdev - Petitioner
Vs.
Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and others - Respondents
Claim Petition No. 98 of 2010
Decided on : 20-09-2013.
Shri J.P. Kansal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Umesh Dhaundiyal, A.P.O. for the State.
Shri S.C. Virmani, Shri V.D. Joshi and Shri V.K. Sharma, Advocates for the respondents.
Headnote:
Pensionary Benefits - Work Charged Establishment - U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, Article 361, 368, 370, 465, 468 of CSR - The court held that the services rendered by the work charged employees under the Government of U.P./U.K. prior to securing the employment with the respondents would not qualify for grant of pension under 1961 Rules. The Full Bench decision in Madan Mohan Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttaranchal 2011 (87) ALR 645: 2011 (1) U.D. 6 (F.B.) held that the said service would not be counted to a regular service and as such he would not be entitled to get pension for the period he worked as a work charged employee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to count the period of service rendered in work charged establishment for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The respondents did not calculate the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the work charge establishment for pension, alleging that the petitioner did not conform to the conditions of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR) and the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the services rendered by the work charged employees would not qualify for grant of pension under the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961. The Full Bench decision in Madan Mohan Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttaranchal 2011 (87) ALR 645: 2011 (1) U.D. 6 (F.B.) held that the said service would not be counted to a regular service and as such he would not be entitled to get pension for the period he worked as a work charged employee.
Issues: The main issue was whether the period of service rendered in the work charged establishment can be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the services rendered by the work charged employees under the Government of U.P./U.K. prior to securing the employment with the respondents would not qualify for grant of pension under 1961 Rules. The Full Bench decision in Madan Mohan Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttaranchal 2011 (87) ALR 645: 2011 (1) U.D. 6 (F.B.) held that the said service would not be counted to a regular service and as such he would not be entitled to get pension for the period he worked as a work charged employee.
Final Decision: The court ordered that the services rendered by the work charged employee in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttarakhand, who is not holding any post whether substantive or temporary and is not appointed in any regular vacancy even if he had worked in the work charged capacity for a long, cannot be counted towards his pensionary benefits.
1. On reference made by the Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon'ble V.K.Maheshwari, Vice Chairman (J) and Hon'ble Sri U.D.Chaube, Member (A), the Full Bench was constituted to answer the following,
"Whether the period of service rendered in work charge establishment can be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits."
2. Before answering the reference, it would be appropriate to consider the facts which have resulted in making present reference. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Division Bench claiming a direction to the respondents to take into account the period of service rendered by him in work charged establishment for fixation of pension and to make the payment of arrears of pension and cost of Rs.10,000/-. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed by the Executive Engineer Hydel Power Corporation, Construction Division, Dakpatthar, Dehradun on 3.9.1970 in the work charged establishment. Later on his services were regularized on 4.9.1973. Thereafter the petitioner was regularly working as a Trainee Supervisor in the regular establishment and thereafter he was appointed Junior Engineer on 28.5.1975. After creation of State of Uttarakhand, the petitioner was posted in Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd and after attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 31.8.2003. Thus, the petitioner rendered 29 years, 10 months and 27 days services as regular employee of the respondents. The respondents while calculating the pension, did not calculate the period of service rendered by him in the work charge establishment and he alleged that the said act of the respondents was arbitrary and illegal and it caused the monetary loss to the petitioner. Inspite of the several representations, no heed was paid to his request to count his services rendered by him as a work charged employee during his service tenure. The services of the petitioner are governed by the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Retirement Rules 1961) for the purposes of pension and C.S.R..
3. The respondents have only challenged that the period of service in the work charged establishment would not be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The petitioner had only rendered the services in the department from 4.9.1973 to 31.8.2003. The petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the services in the said work charged establishment period under Retirement Rules 1961 and requested that his petition be dismissed.
4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner completed three years continuous satisfactory service on work charge establishment. Thereafter his services were regularized and he worked as Junior Engineer till his date of retirement without any interruption, so his services should be added for calculating the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Ld. counsel for the petitioner further contended that the government order issued by the composite State of U.P. NO. lk0&3&1152@nl&915&89] y[kuÅ % fnukad 1-7-1973 is also applicable in the case of the petitioner and he contended that the said Government order of the year 1989 states, even if the petitioner had not rendered 10 years service on the regular establishment, even then as a work charged employee he being a temporary government servant is entitled to get the benefits of the pension by adding said services rendered in the work charged establishment and as such the period from 3.9.1970 to 4.9.1973 is to be counted towards the petitioner's services for calculation of the pension.
5. Ld. counsel for the petitioner contended that after completion of three years continuous satisfactory service in the work charged establishment of Hydro Power Construction Division, Dakpatthar, Dehradun, he was appointed as S.S.A. in the pay scale of Rs.130-240/- w.e.f. 4.9.1973 on the regular basis. It was further contended that the petitioner requested to the respondents to grant
