State Of Uttarakhand & Others vs Mahesh Chandra Sharma

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The application seeking condonation of delay is not opposed by Mr.S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and the delay is,

therefore, condoned. Delay condonation application stands disposed of.

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1502 of 2015 dated 10.05.2018.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted that the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed on a work-charge basis on 08.11.1977;

he retired from service on 30.09.2010; he had been denied pensionary/retiral benefit purportedly on the ground that he had not put in the requisite

years of service; and the services rendered by him, in a work-charge status, had not been counted. After taking note of the submission, urged on

behalf of the petitioner, that the controversy involved in the Writ Petition had been resolved by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

Special Appeal No.225 of 2008 dated 27.04.2010; and the period spent by the respondent-writ petitioner in the capacity of a work-charged employee

should also be considered in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10806 of 2017, the learned Single Judge disposed of the

Writ Petition directing the appellants-respondents to consider the case of the respondent-writ petitioner for release of the pensionary/retiral benefits,

by counting his services in a work-charge status in view of the ratio of the judgment, and more particularly in Paragraph Nos.8 and 9, within ten

weeks from the date of the order.

Since both the learned counsel agree that the subject matter of this Special Appeal is covered by the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No.6798 of 2019 dated 02.09.2019, it is unnecessary for us to refer to what the Division Bench had held in Special Appeal No.225 of 2008.

In its order in Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2019 dated 02.09.2019, the Supreme Court observed that, in view of reading down of Rule 3(8) of the U.P.

Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, the 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 only to three years before the date of the order ie 02.09.2019; and the admissible

benefits should be paid within three months.

While the respondent-writ petitioner is entitled to have the work-charged service rendered by him reckoned for the purpose of determining his

pensionary/retiral benefits, he is entitled for arrears of pension only for a period upto three years prior to the date of the order and, since the order of

the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2019 was passed on 02.09.2019, the entitlement of the respondent-writ petitioner, for arrears of pension

and other retiral benefits, must be reckoned only from 02.09.2016 onwards.

While the entire service rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner in the work-charged establishment shall be included in determining his

retiral/pensionary benefits, and the amount payable to him in this regard shall be calculated accordingly, he shall be paid arrears only from 02.09.2016

and for the period prior thereto.

As directed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the respondent-writ petitioner shall be paid his pensionary/retiral benefits, including

arrears of pension, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid modification, the Special Appeal is disposed of.

No costs.