Allahabad High Court
Nisar Ahmad And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 7 ... on 15 November, 2017
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1242 of 2013
Appellant :- Nisar Ahmad And 7 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 7 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Syed Fahim Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Syed Fahim Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant.
The issue raised in this appeal is about the claim of service benefits including pensionary benefits by including the period of service rendered as work-charge employee towards qualifying period of service for such benefits.
Learned counsel for the the appellant has relied on the judgments that have been dealt with in various decisions but has now invited the attention of the Court to the latest judgment of the Apex Court dated 23.08.2017 rendered in the case of (Habib Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) being Civil Appeal No. 10806 of 2017. He submits that the same provisions which are pari materia in the State of Uttarakhand are applicable in the State of U.P. and therefore, no discrimination or distinction can be made by the State Government in extending such benefits, hence, the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal deserves to be set-aside.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has urged that a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Babu Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2016 (3) ADJ 149 clearly rules otherwise and upon a consideration of the judgments of the Supreme Court including the rules applicable in the State of U.P. to hold that the period spent as a work-charge employee is not liable to be counted towards qualifying period of service. He has then relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. decided on 03.02.2017, where the vires of the Pension Rules namely Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 was challenged, together with the vires of Rule 370 of the U.P. Civil Services Regulations which was upheld. After considering the provisions of paragraph no. 667 to 669 of Chapter XX1 of the Financial Hand Book, the Division Bench following the Full Bench decisions referred to herein above recorded additional reasons for not counting the period of services rendered as a work-charge employee for the purpose of grant of any such benefits.
Learned Standing Counsel has also urged that the Rules as applicable in the State of U.P. and as interpreted in the case of Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag as well as in the case of Babu (Supra) do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Apex Court when the decision in the case of Habib Khan (Supra) was rendered.
Learned counsel for the appellant however submits that against the judgment in the case of Krishna Kumar (Supra) decided on 03rd February 2017. Some of the aggrieved persons had approached the Apex Court and a filed Special Leave to Appeal that was disposed of on 28th July 2017 with an observation that the recommendation of counting such period of service and relaxation has not been reflected in the Government Order, therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Krishna Kumar (Supra) shall not stand in the way of the appellant therein from moving a representation to the State Government for relaxation in the Rules. The State Government was permitted to take an independent decision in the matter. He therefore, submits that even though the Division Bench judgment may have ruled against the appellant yet the State Government was required to take a decision in the matter considering the proposed relaxation in the Rules.
He has then urged that against the Full Bench judgment and other such judgments that have been rendered at Lucknow by the High Court, have been taken up in appeal before the Apex Court and the said appeals are likely to come up tomorrow before the Apex Court for consideration, and in such circumstances the matter may be adjourned in order to enable him to avail of any such information in this regard.
We accordingly, adjourn this matter for 04th December, 2017.
List accordingly.
Learned counsel may inform the Court about the developments in this case.
Copy of the order today.
Order Date :- 15.11.2017
Ishan
