Bachi Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

(i) "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to merge the services rendered by the petitioner as work charge employee with his regular service for the pensionary and other retiral benefits.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to pay the arrears of salary, retiral benefits, gratuity and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the date of his superannuation."

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of " Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others", (2019) 10 SCC 516.

Learned State Counsel does not dispute the above facts.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the case of Prem Singh (Supra), this Court is satisfied that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:-

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularised in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularised. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.

In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that services rendered in the work-charged establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid rule for grant of pension. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed."

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment "Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others", (2019) 10 SCC 516. No order as to costs.

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.