The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the denial of pensionery benefits. It held that service rendered on a work charge basis does not qualify for computing the ten-year qualifying service required for pension under relevant Regulations and Rules.
The writ petition is dismissed for lack of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33118 of 2000
Petitioner :- Ram Sahai Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.B.Gaur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
appealed in Apex Court but the same was dismissed on 05.09.2014. This has been noticed in a subsequent Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No.1306 of 2013 (Navranj Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others) , decided on 16.07.2015, which has also followed the earlier decision in Jai Prakash (supra) and thereafter said as under:
"Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the service rendered by an employee in a work charged establishment cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the qualifying service of ten years for payment of pension. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Article 370(ii) of the Regulations should be read down to include the service rendered in a work charged establishment for payment of pension, therefore, cannot be accepted.
There is, therefore, no error in the impugned judgment which may call for interference in this Special Appeal. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."
Order Date :- 15.12.2017 Shahroz
3 issues framed by the court
Whether services rendered by a petitioner on a work charge basis qualify for computing qualifying service for pension.
Whether the impugned order denying pension to the petitioner is correct in law.
Whether Article 370 of Civil Services Regulations and Rule 3(8)(ii) of U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 preclude counting work charge service for pension.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶9
Special Appeal Defective No.23 of 2014 (Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and others)
Navranj Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Special Appeal No.1306 of 2013 (Navranj Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Sahai
State Of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
