MOOL CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 5/9/2017 passed by the respondent No. 4 to the extent it computes the period running from 2004 till he attained the age of superannuation in the year 2017 and thereby ignoring the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to 2004 in the work charge establishment.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the judgment in the case of Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2020 (139) ALR 195 (SC) the period rendered in the work charge establishment is required to be counted towards qualifying service and for pension and hence, the period rendered by the petitioner in the work charge establishment ought to have been taken into consideration.