Dilbar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The petitioners in this bunch of Writ Petitions have sought the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to count the entire services of the petitioner rendered in

work charge capacity for the purpose of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner including

service benefits i.e. pension, gratuity and other benefits treating him regular in service from the date of when the service of the petitioner was

converted into work charge establishment.

(iii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.â€​

During the course of arguments what has revealed is that the petitioner is still in service and as such relief no. 1, so far the prayer is made, for the

payment of all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits, gratuity would not be treated as to be the relief sought in the present Writ Petition

because the petitioner is still in service and yet to retire. Writ Petition will continue to survive for other relief prayed for.

In view of the above, the relief sought for would stand modulated, and the Writ Petition would be treated as to be a Writ Petition only with regards

to considering the period of work under the work charge establishment for the other service benefits, which would be admissible to the petitioner

under law, during the period of continuance of service.

The case of the petitioner in brief is that, the petitioner was initially appointed under the employment of the respondent on the post of the Beldar on

daily wage basis in the year 1984. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was taken into the work charge establishment under the employment of the

respondent department w.e.f 1.11.1992. It is the case of the petitioner further that the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh had issued a Government

Order on 01.07.1989, wherein it has been provided that the services rendered by an employee in a temporary capacity in a establishment would be

taken into consideration for grant of pension and other monetary benefits. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has worked with the respondent

department as Class-IV employee, since his initial appointment as daily wager is 1984 till 07.02.2011 against the sanctioned post till his services were

regularized. He has rendered ardent services till he attained his age of superannuation on 31.07.2016.

The case of the petitioner is that after the retirement when the post retiral dues were being settled his services rendered in the work charge

establishment is not being taken into consideration for the purposes of settlement of his post retiral dues. In support of his contention for raising a claim

for considering the period of service rendered in work charge establishment for determination of post retiral dues he has placed reliance on the

decision, which has been rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Habib Khan’s case dated 23.08.2017, which was subsequently followed by

the Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of Special Appeal 494 of 2017 ‘State of Uttarakhand & Another vs. Brahm Pal Singh’. preferred

by the State Government whereby the Special Appeal has been dismissed by the judgment dated 26.04.2018, hence, the issue as raised in the present

Writ Petition is squarely covered by the said judgment.

On a question being asked regards parity to the aforesaid judgment from the Standing Counsel, as to whether the issue is covered by those

judgments or not, the Standing counsel admits the fact that the controversy raised in the Writ Petition and the relief claimed are covered by the

judgment of Habib Khan’s case and by the judgment rendered in the bunch of Special Appeals. Mr. N.P. Shah along with Mrs. Anjali Bhargava

have categorically made an admission that relief claimed and issue raised is covered by the judgments referred above, hence have consented to pass

same order. Hence, based on the said consents given by the Standing Counsel, accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to

count the entire services of the petitioner as rendered in the work charge establishment for the purposes of settling his pension and post retirement

dues and grant all consequential benefits admissible to him in accordance with law during his service.

Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition succeeds and writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents commanding them to include the

period of service rendered by petitioner in the work charge establishment for grant of all service benefits.

However, there would be no order as to cost.