Allahabad High Court
Kalpnath vs State Of U.P. And 03 Others on 21 December, 2023
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242162-DB
Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1040 of 2019
Appellant :- Kalpnath
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Madan Mohan Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
1. Heard Shri Madan Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant; Shri Arimardan Singh Rajput, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and, Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
2. Present intra-court appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by learned single Judge in Kalpnath vs State of U.P. & Ors, Writ-A No. 38969 of 2004. For ready reference, that order reads as below:
"1. Heard Sri Madan Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent 2.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 21.06.2004 passed by Accountant General, Lekha-II, Allahabad i.e. respondent no.2 whereby claim of petitioner for counting services rendered by him in Work Charged Establishment for the purpose of pension, has been rejected.
3. Petitioner has himself pleaded in para 4 of writ petition that he was appointed in Work Charged Establishment on 10.05.1989 and services rendered by him in Work Charged Establishment has not been counted for the purpose of pension.
4. In view of Article 370 of Civil Services Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "CSR") read with Rule 3 of U. P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1961) this issue has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Babu @ Babu Ram Vs. State of U. P. and others, 2016 (34) LCD 1132, wherein Court in paras 21 and 22, has said as under :-
"21. We, therefore, hold that the period of service spent in a work charged establishment is not liable to be countenanced for the purposes of computing qualifying service. The law in this regard stands correctly declared and elucidated in Jai Prakash, Navrang Lal Srivastava and Ram Nagina. The decision in Panchu and the other judgments of this Court which have followed the line of reasoning adopted therein shall accordingly stand overruled.
23. We, accordingly, answer the reference by holding that the period of service spent by a person in a work charged establishment is not liable to be counted for the purposes of computing qualifying service. Regulation 370 of the Civil Service Regulations continues to govern and hold the field. The factual backdrop in which Narata Singh came to be rendered escaped the attention of the various Division Benches which followed it despite the existence of the unambiguous command of Regulation 370. Jai Prakash and the subsequent pronouncements following it and referred to above represent the correct position in law. The matter shall now be placed before the learned Single Judge for a decision on the writ petition in the light of what has been held above."
5. In view of aforesaid Full Bench judgment, relief sought for in this petition cannot be granted. Writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.
6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated."
3. Present appeal has been filed carrying a delay of 366 days. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. Delay Condonation Application 1 of 2019 is allowed.
4. On merits, decision of the learned single Judge is based solely on the law laid down by the full bench of this Court in Babu @ Babu Ram vs State of U.P. & Ors., 2016 (34) LCD 1132. That is no longer good law in light of the later three judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh vs State of U.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2019 wherein in the penultimate paragraph of that decision, it has been held as below:
"36. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that 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 to three years only before the date of order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed."
5. To the above extent, there is no dispute or surviving lis between the parties. The decision of the learned single Judge may have followed the law as existed on the date of decision, but that is no longer the correct law in light of the subsequent decision of Prem Singh (supra).
6. In view of the above, present appeal is allowed. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of Supreme Court decision in Prem Singh (supra) (Reference - paragraph 36).
Order Date :- 21.12.2023
Prakhar
(Vinod Diwakar, J.) (S.D. Singh, J.)
