Shiv Shanker Singh vs State Of ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1808 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2646 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Shiv Shanker Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Irrigation,Lucknow & Ors
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Rajeev Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J. 

1.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 18.4.2013 rendered by this court in Writ Petition (SB) No.361 of 2011, placed on record as Annexure-4. The period for which the petitioner served as Workcharge Employee is required to be counted for pensionary benefits.

2.Provisions of Rule 370 of the Civil Service Regulations have not been considered in the cited judgment. The Rule reads as under:

"370. Continuous, temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or in other post shall qualify except -

(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non-pensionable establishment;

(ii) periods of service in Work-charged establishment, and

(iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingency."

3.Reliance has also been placed on Rule 3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules 1961. The said rules reads as under:

"Qualifying service" means service which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Civil Service Regulations."

4.Rule 368 of the Civil Service Regulations reads as under:

"368. Service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment."

5.Let counter affidavit be filed.

6.List after three weeks.

Order Date :- 8.5.2013

A.Nigam