MADAN MOHAN CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 284 (S/B) of 2004, Madan Mohan Chaudhary v. State of Uttarakhand and others, has referred following question to the larger Bench, constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice : "Whether, the Government order dated 1st July, 1989, referred in the judgment of the Division Bench (in Special Appeal No. 225 of 2008, State of U. P. and another v. Pitamber Dutt Sanwal, arisen out of Writ Petition No. 843 (S/S) of 2003) applies to work-charge employees, or not?

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 843 (S/S) of 2003, Pitamber Dutt Sanwal v. State of U. P. and another, decided on 24.7.2008 by this Court, were that the writ petitioner of said case was appointed as Driver on work-charge basis on 4.10.1977, in Jamrani Bandh Project under Irrigation Department of State of Uttar Pradesh. He rendered his service as such till 27.5.1995, where after he was regularized and brought under regular establishment. He retired on attaining age of superannuation on 31.5.2000. He filed Writ Petition No. 843 (S/S) of 2003, directing respondent No. 2 Executive Engineer, Ban Sagar Nahar, Nirman Khand-6, Mirzapur to pay amount of provident fund, insurance, pension and other pensionary benefits with interest. Learned single Judge of this Court uide his judgment and order dated 24.7.2008, following the judgment and order dated 3.3.2006, passed in Special Appeal No. 93 of 2004, State of U. P., through Engineer-In-Chief, Public Works Department, Lucknow and another v. Anand Singh, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent No. 2 of said writ petition to release the pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 24.7.2008, State of U. P., and Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department of said State filed Special Appeal No. 225 of 2008. A Division Bench of this Court decided said appeal vide its order dated 27.4.2010, whereby it dismissed the appeal holding that Government order dated 1.7.1989, issued by State of U.P., shall be applicable to the writ petitioner of said case (Pitamber Dutt Sanwal), as he stood to have rendered ten years service on temporary basis. The 1292 Madan Mohan Chaudhary v. State of Uttaranchal (Utt-F.B.) [2011 (2) contention of the appellants that only the period from 27.5.1995 (date of regularization) to 31.5.2000 (date of superannuation) was the period to be considered as regular service (which was less than ten years) was not accepted by the Division Ben9h of this Court. When said judgment and order dated 27.4.2010, passed in Special Appeal No. 225 of 2008, was referred by present writ petitioner Madan Mohan Chaudhary in Writ Petition No. 284 (S/B) of 2004 before the Division Bench, the Division Bench hearing the writ petition felt that it was not in a position to follow the aforesaid judgment, and referred the matter to the larger Bench for answering the question, quoted above.

(3.) THE language of Para 1 of the Government order quoted above, makes it clear that the Government order is being issued to clarify Article 368 of Civil Service Regulations. For the purposes of this case we are particularly concerned what has been contained in Para 2 of the Government order quoted above, which provides that on completion of minimum of ten years regular service, on superannuation, a temporary employee would be entitled to pensionary benefits including gratuity, family pension etc. as payable to a permanent employee.