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

2016 Supreme(Online)(All) 72

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Full Bench, J
Babu @ Babu Ram v. State of U. P. and 3 Others


Table of Content
1. conflict in definitions of work charged employee status (Para 1 , 2)
2. judicial clarification on distinctions between service types (Para 3 , 4)
3. pension eligibility criteria set by specific regulations (Para 5 , 6)
4. legal exclusion of work charged service from qualifying for pension (Para 10 , 18)
5. final ruling on service qualification for pension under regulation (Para 23 , 24)

1. This reference has been placed before the Full Bench consequent to a learned Single Judge forming the opinion that a "serious conflict" existed between three Division Bench decisions of the Court. The issue arises with reference to the provisions of Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations as applicable in the State of U.P. The issue is whether the period of service rendered as a work charged or a daily wage employee is liable to be counted for the purposes of computing “qualifying service” as required by Regulation 370 for the grant of pension. The judgments rendered by the Division Benches of the Court, which were noticed by the learned Single Judge, were: (a) State of U.P. And Others Vs. Panchu [Special Appeal Defective No. 842 of 2013 decided on 2.12.2013]; (b) State of


























































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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top