Sitab Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Others

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 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 services of the petitioner was

converted into work charge establishment.

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

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

Since identical issue has been raised and decided by this Court in various writ petitions which stood confirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court.

This writ petition being heard finally with consent of the parties as the case is squarely covered. The backdrop under which the petitioner has sought

the relief as quoted above is on the ground that the petitioner was appointed with the respondents on the post of Beldar on daily wage basis as back as

in the year 1984. Thereafter, he was taken into the work charge establishment w.e.f. 01.11.1992. After having rendered continuous satisfactory

service and looking to the past conduct of the petitioner, his services were regularized by the respondents by an order dated 07.12.2011 and it is the

case of the petitioner that he continued to discharge his duties in the capacity of Beldar on regular basis till he attained the age of superannuation on

29.02.2012.

The case of the petitioner is that in the undivided State of U.P. had issued a Government Order dated 01.07.1989. The said governments order

provided that under Article 368 of the Civil Services Regulations (now Article 361-A, Civil Service Regulations) provided that an incumbent would not

be granted pension unless he has rendered services on permanent post. Faced with some difficulties in determination of retiral benefit. Thus, the

Government Order provided that temporary services is to be considered for grant of pensionary benefits, for those temporary employees who have

rendered 10 years of continuous services and has completed 20 years or has attained the age of 45 years, whichever is earlier.

The erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh had issued a Government Order on 01.07.1989 as referred above, wherein it has been provided that the

services rendered by an employee in a temporary capacity in an establishment on fulfilling certain conditions as provided in the Government Order, the

services rendered 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 made in 1984 as daily wager till 01.11.1992 when brought in work

charge establishment and ultimately regularized the services against the sanctioned post, till the services regularized on 07.02.2011. He has rendered

ardent services and attained his age of superannuation on 29.02.2012.

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

establishment were not being considered and 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 Appeals being SPA No. 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. Pleading to the said effect is raised in

paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19 of the present petition which is quoted as under:-

“14. That the controversy raised in the present writ petition have already been settled by this Hon’ble Court in writ petition No.2348 (S/S) of

2015 vide his judgment and order dated 05.06.2017, whereby this Hon’ble Court was pleased and allowed the writ petitions filed by the writ

petitioner/petitioners and directed the respondents to count the entire service of the petitioners rendered in work charge capacity followed by their

regularization for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral including gratuity.

That the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an identical order in writ petition No.3231 of 2017 (S/S) titled as Kamlapati vs. Staste of

Uttarkhand & others and writ petition No.1487 of 2012 titled as Daleep Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, whereby the writ petitions filed by

writ petition was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court in terms of the Civil Appeal No.10806 of 2017 “Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand &

othersâ€. In this connected true copy of the order dated 08.11.2017 & 09.04.2018 passed by this Hon’ble Court are being filed herewith and

marked as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition.

That the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment and order dated 08.11.2017 (S/S) titled as Kamlapati vs. State of

Uttarakhand & others.

That the petitioner is entitled to count his services rendered in the work charge establishment for the purpose of pensionary benefit, the

controversy involved in the present writ petition have already been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10806 of 2017, Habib Khan

vs. State of Uttarakhand & others. Therefore, the principle law laid down by Hon’ble Apex court is applicable in the case of the petitioner.

That it is brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand vs. Satpal Singh, the Special Appeal filed by the State

of Uttarakhand have already been dismissed against the order passed by Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court, the State prepared a SLP before the

Hon’ble Apex court same was disposed of on 19.01.2018. In this connection true copy of order dated 19.01.2018 passed by Hon’ble Apex

Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(S) 507 of 2018 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.5 to this writ petition.

That the petitioner has is squarely covered in Civil Appeal No.10806 of 2017 titled as Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand & others and petitioner

is entitled to count service rendered by the petitioners in work charge establishment followed his regulation.â€​

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 dated 26.04.2018 rendered in the bunch of Special Appeals. Mr. M.C. Tiwari, Deputy

Advocate General has categorically made an admission that relief claimed by the petitioner and issue raised is covered by the judgments referred

above, hence have consented to pass same order. Thus, based on the said consents given by the Standing Counsel, accordingly, the Writ Petition is

allowed. Respondents are directed to include 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 accruing there to the petitioner and admissible to him in accordance

with law during his service.

Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition succeeds and is allowed a 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 post retiral benefits and pension. The respondents are

directed to ensure compliance within two months from today.

However, there would be no order as to cost.