JAI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Judge of this Court dismissed Writ Petition No.26736 of 2012 that was filed by the appellant for quashing the order dated 3 May 2011 which denied benefit of the service rendered by the appellant in a work charged establishment for computing the qualifying service for grant of pension as the learned Judge had earlier rejected such a contention in the judgment rendered on 31 July 2013 in Writ Petition No.2387 of 2011 (Shri Rama Shankar Pandey [Seenchpal] Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). It is against this order of dismissal of the writ petition that the present Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

(2.) In Shri Rama Shankar Pandey , the learned Judge held that the service rendered in a work charged establishment does not qualify for grant of pension in view of the provisions of Article 370(ii) of the Civil Service Regulations as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. For arriving at this conclusion, reliance was placed on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Pavan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 8 ADJ 664 and several decisions of the Supreme Court which explained the nature of appointment of work charged employees.

(3.) Article 370 of the Civil Service Regulations, as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, provides that continuous, temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interpretations by confirmation in the same or any other post shall qualify for pension except;