The main legal point established is that services rendered in the work charge establishment should be considered for post-retiral benefits and pension, as supported by relevant judgments.

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count the entire services of the petitioner rendered in work charge capacity for the purpose of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner including service benefits i.e. pension, gratuity and other benefits treating him regular in service from the date of when the services of the petitioner was converted into work charge establishment.

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

2. Since identical issue has been raised and decided by this Court in various writ petitions which stood confirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. This writ petition being heard finally with consent of the parties as the case is squarely covered. The backdrop under which the petitioner has sought the relief as quoted above is on the ground that the petitioner was appointed with the respondents on the post of Beldar on daily wage basis as back as in the year 1984. Thereafter, he was taken into the work charge establishment w.e.f. 01.11.1992. After having rendered continuous satisfactory service and looking to the past conduct of the petitioner, his services were regularized by the respondents by an order dated 07.12.2011 and it is the case of the petitioner that he continued to discharge his duties in the capacity of Beldar on regular basis till he attained the age of superannuation on 29.02.2012.

3. The case of the petitioner is that in the undivided State of U.P. had issued a Government Order dated 01.07.1989. The said governments order provided that under Article 368 of the Civil Services Regulations (now Article 361-A, Civil Service Regulations) provided that an incumbent would not be granted pension unless he has rendered services on permanent post. Faced with some difficulties in determination of retiral benefit. Thus, the Government Order provided that temporary services is to be considered for grant of pensionary benefits, for those temporary employees who have rendered 10 years of continuous services and has completed 20 years or has attained the age of 45 years, whichever is earlier.

4. The erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh had issued a Government Order on 01.07.1989 as referred above, wherein it has been provided that the services rendered by an employee in a temporary capacity in an establishment on fulfilling certain conditions as provided in the Government Order, the services rendered would be taken into consideration for grant of pension and other monetary benefits. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has worked with the respondent department as Class-IV employee, since his initial appointment made in 1984 as daily wager till 01.11.1992 when brought in work charge establishment and ultimately regularized the services against the sanctioned post, till the services regularized on 07.02.2011. He has rendered ardent services and attained his age of superannuation on 29.02.2012.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the retirement, when the post retiral dues were being settled his services rendered in the work charge establishment were not being considered and taken into consideration for the purposes of settlement of his post retiral dues. In support of his contention for raising a claim for considering the period of service rendered in work charge establishment for determination of post retiral dues he has placed reliance on the decision, which has been rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Habib Khan’s case dated 23.08.2017, which was subsequently followed by the Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of Special Appeals being SPA No. 49