STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS Vs. JAI DATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT was regularized on 22nd April, 1996 and he retired on 6th May, 2004 after having had served for 8 & 1/2 years only as a regular employee of the State. On that ground, he was not given the benefit of pension. That grievance was challenged by the respondent in writ petition no. 1046 (S/S) of 2004. It was contended that he having been regularized, the services rendered by him while working as daily wager and subsequently, as work charge employee should also be taken into account for the purposes of counting the period of service entitling him to obtain pension. This contention appears to have had not been considered by learned Single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, but directed issuance of appropriate orders regarding pensionary benefits payable to the respondent. When the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge was considered by a Division Bench of this Court, it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and another vs. Pitamber Dutt Sanwal (Special Appeal No. 225 of 2008) decided on 27th April, 2010, has held that time spent in the work charge establishment is to be counted for the purpose of determination of the period spent in the Government service for entitling a Government employee to obtain pension. Having noted the said judgment the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, another Division Bench expressed doubt as to the law laid down in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, rendered in the case of State of U.P. and another vs. Pitamber Dutt Sanwal (Special Appeal No. 225 of 2008) and accordingly, referred the matter to the Larger Bench. In consequence thereof, a Larger Bench was constituted and the said Larger Bench pronounced that the said judgment of this Court rendered in State of U.P. and another vs. Pitamber Dutt Sanwal (Special Appeal No. 225 of 2008) is not good law and that a Government servant cannot add time spent in the work charge establishment, for the purpose of calculating the period of Government service for obtaining pension.

(2.) IN those circumstances, the appellant applied for review of the judgment of this Court dated 1st June, 2010 whereby, the appeal preferred against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered on the writ petition of the respondent was dismissed on the ground, as above. The said review application has since been allowed in view of the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court. Having regard to, what has been stated above, and, also having regard to the fact that Larger Bench of this Court has held that a Government employee is not entitled to add the period spent by him in the work charge establishment, to the period to be calculated for awarding pension to him, we have no other option but to allow the appeal, which we do, and at the same time, dismiss the writ petition.