Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 3585
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ
State of UP and 3 others – Appellant
Versus
Arun Kumar Srivastava – Respondent
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 62 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chandan Kumar
For the Respondents: Anand Kumar Srivastava, Pratibha Asthana
Work charge services cannot be counted towards pension qualifying services unless specified by statutory provisions.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 - Regulations 361 and 370 - Pensionary benefits - Work charge service of employees not counted as qualifying service. - Court ruled that services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for pension unless regularized under specific provisions. (Paras 6.1, 18, and 7)
(B) Jurisdiction of the Higher Court - Higher courts cannot nullify provision of service rules as per statutory amendments impacting the qualification of pension eligibility. (Paras 14-19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner engaged since 1984 on a daily wage basis later regularized his service, sought recognition of previous work charge service for revised pension claims post-retirement.
Findings of Court:
The order of the learned Single Judge allowing the petitioner's claim was quashed due to misinterpretation of service provisions relevant to pension.
Issues: Whether services as daily wager/work charge can be counted for pension after regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized on the importance of statutory regulations in determining the qualifying service for pension, disallowing previous work charge services from being counted.
Result: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the State, allowing for pension recognition only as per the current legal framework.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay condonation application accepted. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's service tenure inclusive of work charge sought for pension. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. single judge ruling adhered to contradictions of service and pension provisions. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. counterarguments against pension eligibility considered. (Para 7 , 11) |
| 5. final verdict allows appeal, rejecting prior work charge consideration in pension calculations. (Para 12 , 19) |
1. Learned counsel for the opposite party-petitioner states that he is not inclined to file an objection to the delay condonation application and he has no objection in case delay condonation application is allowed.
2. For the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing Special Appeal, the delay condonation application is allowed. The Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time.
Special Appeal
3. Heard Sri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-State respondents and Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party-petitioner.
4. Present Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.05.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ A No.8095 of 2023 (Arun Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & 3 others) by which he has proceeded to allow the writ petition.
5. In brief, the facts of the case are that the opposite party- petitioner was initially engaged on 09.02.1984 as daily wager on the post of Meth in Provincial Division, Public Works Department1 Varanasi. Subsequently, in compliance of the letters of the Chief Engineer dated 13.4.1989 and 18.11.192, he was accorded posting in the work charge establishment with effect from 01.11.1992. Finally, his services were regularized on 01.07.2003. After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner was retired from the service on 31.05.2019. After retirement, he had made several representations before the respondent authorities for payment of revised pension, arrears with interest and other consequential benefits including counting the services of the petitioner rendered by him in work charge establishment in regular service. Lastly, he had submitted an application dated 20.07.2021 before Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Varanasi and the said application was rejected on 29.10.2021. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by Respondent No. 4, i.e. Executive Engineer, Prantiya Khand, Public Works Department, Varanasi, by which the representation/claim of the petitioner dated 12.10.2020 and 20.07.2021, has been rejected.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to revise the pension of the petitioner and pay him the revised pension, arrear with interest and other consequential benefits, counting the services of the petitioner rendered by him in work charge establishment (From 01.11.1992 to 30.06.2003) in regular service."
6. It further appears from the record that the aforesaid writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge on 16.5.2023, relying upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others2. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced herein below:-
"8. The record reflects that petitioner has been engaged as daily wager on 09.02.1984. It also transpires from the record that since the date of engagement of petitioner as daily wager, he was continuously working till his services was regularized on 01.07.2003, therefore, in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra), the services rendered as daily wager are liable to be counted for the purpose of grant o
