IMPORTANT POINT
Past service of contractual employees is to be counted for pension benefits, as per CCS Pension Rules and Supreme Court precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Ritu Bahri, C.J.

The State has come up in this bunch of appeals against the judgment dated 05.07.2018, passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2684 of 2015, Balraj Singh Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner Balraj Singh Negi was allowed.

2. Before further discussion it is pertinent to mention here that various co-ordinate Benches of this Court have disposed of majority of writ petitions in terms of judgment dated 05.07.2018, rendered in the case of Balraj Singh Negi, as enumerated hereinabove, feeling aggrieved, the State has preferred these special appeals.

3. Since common question of law and facts are involved in this bunch of appeals, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience.

4. Appellants are the respondents in the writ petitions. The writ petitioners are persons, who were working in various Industrial Training Institutes established under the State. Originally, they were working as Prashikshan Mitras. Subsequently, it is their case that they have been confirmed / appointed by regular selection. The issue, which is raised in the writ petitions, appears to be that they are denied continuation of service from the date they got appointment as Prashikshan Mitras till regularization of their services / appointment by regular selection. Feeling aggrieved, they filed separate writ petitions, which have led to the present bunch of appeals before this Court. Special Appeal No. 940 of 2018 shall be treated as a leading case for the sake of brevity.

5. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-writ petitioner Balraj Singh Negi was appointed as Prashikshan Mitra vide order dated 07.03.2002 on the basis of his qualification against the post of Instructor. Subsequently, an advertisement was issued by the appellants on 21.02.2010 for filling up the post of Instructor, I.T.I. Motor Mechanic. After participating in the selection process, the respondent-writ petitioner was found suitable and got appointed on said post, on 17.12.2010. The similarly situated persons, who were appointed as Prashikshan Mitras were regularized in the year 2013-2014. Respondent-writ petitioner, though was selected on 21.02.2010, but got appointment on 17.12.2014.

6. The only question for consideration before the learned Single Judge was whether the continuous service rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner from 07.03.2002 till his appointment as Instructor, I.T.I. Motor Mechanic on 17.12.2014, has to be counted for pensionary purposes by the appellant State, or not? The writ petition was allowed and a direction was given to the State to count the services rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner w.e.f. 07.03.2002 till his appointment as Instructor, I.T.I. Motor Mechanic on 17.12.2014 for all intents and purposes keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2018 SC 233, Sheo Narain Nagar & others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others.

7. The main ground taken by counsel for the State in the present appeal is that once the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed on regular basis on 17.12.2014, he could not be given any benefit of the past services, and reliance of the learned Single Judge on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar’s case (supra) is on different facts, and respondent cannot get the benefit of said judgment because in that case the employee had been appointed in the year 1993, and he was given temporary status on 02.10.2002, and after the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs Uma Devi & others, 2006 (4) SCC 01, he had completed 10 years of service on the date when he was given temporary status, i.e., 02.10.2002, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had given directions that his services be regularized w.e.f. 02.10.2002 with all consequential benefits and arrears of salary.

8. The facts of the present case are that the respondent-writ petitioner was given reg