Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 1044

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
PREM SINGH – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS – RESPONDENTS
DIARY NOS.11803, 32599, 35336, 36218, 36406, 38274, 38286, 38388, 38391, 39346, 40382, 40385, 40389, 40392, 40396, 40487, 40493, 41600, 41601, 41602, 41607, 41610, 41798, 41805, 41808 OF 2018, MA NO. 1541, 1542, 1544, 1545, 1546, 1543 OF 2018, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6798, 6804, 6799-6803, 6938-6942, 6805, 6806, 6937, 6943, 6810 , 6944, 6945, 6808, 6809, 6946, 6825, 6947, 6948, 6949, 6811, 6812, 6807, 6950, 6813, 6951, 6952, 6953, 6954, 6955, 6956, 6957, 6826, 6958, 6959, 6960, 6961, 6962, 6963, 6964, 6965, 6827, 6819, 6828, 6816, 6817, 6815, 6824, 6818, 6814, 6834, 6823, 6822, 6821, 6820, 6833, 6838, 6832, 6829, 6831, 6830, 6844, 6835, 6839, 6840, 6837, 6836, 6843, 6853, 6846, 6841, 6842, 6845, 6856, 6855, 6858, 6852, 6847, 6850, 6857, 6859, 6848, 6849, 6860, 6851, 6864, 6861, 6862, 6854, 6863, 6866, 6869, 6877, 6870, 6868, 6876, 6874, 6879, 6865, 6875, 6871, 6878, 6867, 6873, 6872, 6882, 6881, 6884, 6880, 6883, 6900, 6885, 6887, 6886, 6888, 6889, 6890, 6891, 6895, 6892, 6896, 6897, 6893, 6898, 6894, 6901, 6899, 6904, 6903, 6905, 6902, 6927-6929, 6906, 6907, 6908, 6909, 6910, 6911, 6912, 6930, 6913, 6914, 6915, 6916, 6917, 6918, 6919, 6921, 6923, 6925, 6920, 6924, 6922, 6931, 6932, 6926 OF 2019, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.4371 OF 2011, 19310, 19234, 19346, 19350, 19740, 19297 OF 2017, 32628, 32494, 32624, 32627, 32534, 30979, 30461, 30462, 29567, 29893, 30196, 30460, 18754, 25706, 613-617, 5775 of 2018, 21252-21256, 21250, 21262, 21265, 21266, 21267, 508, 21268, 21269, 21270, 21271, 21272, 21273, 21274, 21275, 21276, 21279, 21280, 512, 21281, 21282, 21283, 21284, 21285, 21286, 21287, 21288, 513, 383, 514, 504, 1722, 503, 502, 501, 446, 1721, 1726, 1720, 795, 1716, 796, 2311, 1723, 1727, 1728, 1725, 1724, 2310, 3085, 2852, 2308, 2309, 2312, 3088, 3087, 3867, 3084, 2853, 2856, 3866, 3868, 2854, 2855, 3869, 2857, 5157, 3870, 3871 3086, 3872, 5159, 5355, 7233, 5356, 5354, 7232, 6647, 7235, 5158, 7227, 5357, 7234, 5160, 6646, 6645, 7742, 7741, 8301, 7739, 8300, 11909, 8302, 9288, 9269, 9289, 9290, 9291, 9292, 10095, 9293, 10096, 10097, 9294, 11824, 10094, 11910, 11825, 12358, 12357, 14496, 12356, 15421-15426, 14497, 14498, 14499, 14500, 14502, 14505, 14506, 14507, 14509, 14510, 14511, 14512, 14513, 14514, 14640, 14705, 15418, 14516, 15052, 14704, 15419 OF 2019
Decided On : 02-09-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the parties :V. K. Shukla, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Manohar Pratap, Varun Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aparna Singh, Kuldeep Rai, Manohar Pratap, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, Adv. Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Anand Vardhan Maitreya, Satish Kumar, Ajit Singh Pundir, Arijeet Singh, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Umme S., Adv. (Appearance slip not legible) Aditya Giri, Abhishek Singh, Ajay Vikram Singh, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Kamlesh Anand, Ankur Yadav, Aakash Kumar, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Mrs. Manju Singh, Tarun Verma, Atul Sharma, R. K. Pandey, Mukesh K. Giri, Harish Chandra Pant, Shoaib Ahmad Khan, Sandeep Garausa, Anis Ahmed Khan, Anand Mishra, Amrendra Kumar Singh, Ravindra S. Garia, Shashank Singh, Adv. Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Deepak Mishra, R.P. Bansal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Ms. Namita Choudhary, Ms. Srishti Khurana, Vikas Negi, Jaswant Singh Rawat, Vikas Negi,Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, Ms. Preeti Singh, Himanshu Tyagi, Farrukh Rasheed, Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, B. K. Pal, S. K. Verma, Sanjeev Malhotra, S. R. Setia, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
Rule 3(8), 1961 Rules read down to hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment and Regulation 370, Civil Services Regulations and instructions contained in Para 669, Financial Handbook struck down.
Employees rendering services under work charged establishment not against any particular project for more than 30-40 years ought to have been regularized.

Headnote:
(a) Service law - Qualifying service for pension - Employment not for a particular project though considered under work charged establishment - Employees getting monthly salary in a pay scale - Crossing efficiency bar - Nature of work and regular and perennial - Employees transferred from one place to another - Later services regularized but period not counted towards qualifying service - No rhyme or reason not to count the service of work-charged period rendered before regularization towards qualifying service - Impermissible - Rule 3(8), U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961read down to hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment - Regulation 370, Uttar Pradesh Civil Services Regulations and instructions contained in Para 669, Financial Handbook Vol. VI struck down. (Para 32, 33, 34)
(b) Service law - Regularisation - Employees rendering services under work charged establishment for more than 30-40 years and superannuating without regularization - Service not against any particular project - Services ought to have been regularized. (Para 35)
Facts of the case:
Validity of Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulation of Uttar Pradesh is under consideration in this case.
The appellant was appointed as a Welder in the year 1965 in a work-charged establishment. He was transferred from one place to another and thereafter ultimately the Selection Committee recommended for regularization of his services. His services were regularized on 13.3.2002 and was posted as Pump Operator in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 in the regular establishment. He superannuated on 31.1.2007. Then he filed a writ petition in the High Court on 31.7.2008 to count period spent in the work-charged establishment as qualifying service under the Rules of 1965. The High Court directed to submit a representation, accordingly it was filed which met with rejection on 12.12.2008. Yet another representation filed also met with the same fate vide order dated 23.3.2009. The writ petition and special appeal had been dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Services of the petitioners under work charged establishment should be counted for qualifying service for pension.
Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. The question involved in the present matters is whether Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 (in short “Rules of 1961”) and Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulation of Uttar Pradesh should be struck down having regard to the fact that this Court has upheld the decision regarding pari materia provision enacted in the State of Punjab which excluded computation of the period of work-charged services from qualifying service for pension. This Court has affirmed the decision of the High Court of State of Punjab and Haryana rendered in Kesar Singh v. the State of Punjab, AIR 1988 Punjab and Haryana 265.

2. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the matter to be considered by a larger bench. Hence the matter is before us.

3. The facts are being narrated from Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (C.A. No.________of 2019 @ SLP (Civil) No.4371 of 2011). The appellant was appointed as a Welder in the year 1965 in a work-charged establishment (Ram Ganga River Valley Project, Kalagarh). He was transferred from one place to another and thereafter ultimately the Selection Committee recommended for regularization of his services. His services were regularized on 13.3.2002 and was posted as Pump Operator in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 in the regular establishment. He superannuated on 31.1.2007. Then he filed a writ petition in the High Court on 31.7.2008 to count period spent in the work-charged establishment as qualifying service under the Rules of 1965. The High Court directed to submit a representation, accordingly it was filed which met with rejection on 12.12.2008. Yet another representation filed also met with the same fate vide order dated 23.3.2009. The writ petition and special appeal had been dismissed.

4. The appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand (Civil Appeal No.10805-10807 of 2017) in which a Division Bench of this Court considering Regulation 370 of the Civil Service Regulations which has been approved in the State of Uttarakhand after its bifurcation from the State of Uttar Pradesh, held that Regulation 370 is pari materia provision to the one as contained in Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules which had been struck down by a Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (supra). The challenge to the same was rejected by this Court. The Court has further relied on Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Narata Singh and Anr., (2010) 4 SCC 317 in which it has been observed that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was perfectly justified in striking down Rule 3.17(ii) of Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in said rule between temporary and officiating service and work-charged service. This Court held that period of work-charged service should be counted for computation of qualifying service for grant of pension.

5. This Court in other cases has followed the aforesaid decision in Habib Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (supra) giving relief to the employees. In Ram Deo Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.2896 of 2018) decided on 16.3.2018, the decision of Habib Khan (supra) has been followed. This Court has dismissed the Review application filed in the case of Habib Khan (supra).

6. It is submitted by Shri Raghuvendra Singh, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh that there is a difference in the Rules and Regulations in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab. The rule of Punjab was struck down by the High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab (supra). In Punjab, there was deemed regularization whereas in State of Uttar Pradesh services have been regularized on a particular date; as such that date has to be taken as the commencement of the services for the qualifying period for a pension under Rule 3(8) of the Rules. He has also pointed out the conceptual difference between regul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 1044

Cases Referred (6)