Allahabad High Court
Smt. Manorama Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 April, 2015
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21366 of 2015
Petitioner :- Smt. Manorama Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Ram Singh,Janardan Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner was engaged as a daily wager muster roll employee in work charge establishment on 19.11.1984 where she continued to work till 28.12.1993. The services of the petitioner were orally terminated on 28.12.1993 against which she raised an industrial dispute which was allowed by an award dated 27.3.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Varanasi. A writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3473 of 1999 was filed by the State authorities, which was ultimately dismissed. By an order dated 26.12.2001 the petitioner was reinstated on her post as work charge employee. Subsequently, by an office order dated 29.10.2011 issued by the respondent no. 2 the petitioner was regularized as Class IV employee "Beldar". By an order of posting dated 1.11.2011 she was granted pay scale of Rs. 5,200 - 20,200/-, Pay Grade of Rs. 1800/- on the post of regular Beldar. She has retired on 31.1.2015.
The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to sanction and pay the regular pension alongwith entire post retiral dues (counting the services rendered in work charge establishment towards the continuous service) as applicable to the regular post of Beldar in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Special Appeal No. 445 of 2011 and Writ Petition A - No. 59622 of 2014.
Undisputed fact, which is clear from the prayer itself, is that the petitioner wants that her work as work charge employee should be counted towards eligibility period of 10 years for the purpose of grant of pension. This issue was considered in detail by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 23 of 2014, Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 9.1.2014 and it was held by the Hon'ble Division Bench as under:
"It, therefore, follows from the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court that the work charged employees constitute a distinct class and they cannot be equated with regular employees and that the work charged employees are not entitled to the service benefits which are admissible to regular employees under the relevant rules.
We are conscious that in Special Appeal Defective No.842 of 2013 (State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Panchu) that was decided on 2 December 2013, a Division Bench, after taking notice of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narata Singh (supra), observed that the rationale which weighed with the Supreme Court should also govern the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations, but what we find from a perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench is that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jagjiwan Ram (supra), Jaswant Singh (supra) and Kunji Raman (supra) as also the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Pavan Kumar Yadav (supra) had not been placed before the Court. These decisions of the Supreme Court and the Full Bench of this Court leave no manner of doubt that in view of the material difference between an employee working in a work charged establishment and an employee working in a regular establishment, the service rendered in a work charged establishment cannot be clubbed with service in a regular establishment unless there is a specific provision to that effect in the relevant Statutes. Article 370(ii) of the Civil Service Regulations specifically, on the contrary, excludes the period of service rendered in a work charged establishment for the purposes of payment of pension and we have in the earlier part of this judgment held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Narata Singh (supra), which relates to Rule 3.17(i) of the Punjab Electricity Rules, does not advance the case of the appellant. In this view of the matter, the appellant is not justified in contending that the period of service rendered from 1 October 1982 to 5 January 1996 as a work charged employee should be added for the purpose of computing the qualifying service for payment of pension."
The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the appellant in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12648 of 2014, Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was dismissed on 5.9.2014 by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the following order was passed:
"There is nothing on the record to suggest that any Rule or Scheme framed by the State to count the work-charge period for the purpose of pension in the regular establishment. In absence of any such Rule or Scheme, we find no merit to interfere with the impugned judgment.
The special leave petition is dismissed."
In view of the aforesaid, the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case rendered in Special Appeal No. 445 of 2011, Bhuneshwar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and others is of no help.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage prays that the matter relating to payment of any other retiral dues which is still pending be directed to be decided within a time bound period.
Accordingly, it is provided that in case any other retiral benefits are still pending to be paid to the petitioner, the same shall be paid, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 18.4.2015
p.s.
