Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

State Of Uttarakhand And Others vs Naresh Kumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 2278 UK

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2278 UK
Judgement Date : 1 October, 2024

Uttarakhand High Court

State Of Uttarakhand And Others vs Naresh Kumar on 1 October, 2024

                                                        2024:UHC:7270-DB




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL
            HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
                              AND
              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

                         01ST OCTOBER, 2024
             SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1029 OF 2018

State of Uttarakhand and others.
                                                          ...Appellants
                              Versus

Naresh Kumar.
                                                         ...Respondent
Counsel for the appellants.    :   Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional
                                   Chief Standing Counsel for the State
                                   of Uttarakhand.

Counsel for the respondent.    :   Mr. Hem    Chandra    Joshi,   learned
                                   counsel.

JUDGMENT :

(per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.) There is a delay of 330 days in preferring the

present Special Appeal. For the reasons stated in the

application seeking condonation of delay, the same is

allowed, and the delay of 330 days in preferring the

present Special Appeal is, hereby, condoned.

2. The State has come up in appeal against the

judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ

Petition (S/S) No. 1560/2015 dated 22.12.2017, whereby

the learned Single Judge had disposed of the Writ

Petition.

2024:UHC:7270-DB

3. The short question for consideration in the

present Special Appeal is that, whether the services

rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner, before the

date of regularization, can be counted for the purposes of

pension.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-writ

petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court passed in the case of Uday Pratap

Thakur and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Civil

Appeal No. 3155/2023). In the said case, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, while referring to the judgment in the

case of Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 516, has held that, under the U.P.

Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, after rendering service

as a work charged for number of years in Government

establishment/ department, denying them pension on the

ground that they have not completed the qualifying

service for pension would be unjust, arbitrary and illegal.

In paragraph no. 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had

observed that the service rendered as work charged after

their services have been regularized under the

regularization scheme, namely the Rules of 2013, it shall

be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for

pension only as per Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013.

2024:UHC:7270-DB

5. Hence, the only condition for considering the

work charged service for pension is if the services have

been regularized as per the policy framed by the

Government. This Court, on similar issue, had dismissed

the Appeals filed by the State, being Special Appeal No.

940/2018 and connected cases, vide judgment dated

10.04.2024, and has held that the ad hoc services

rendered before regularization has to be counted only for

the purpose of pension, and not seniority. Reference was

made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others v.

Sheela Devi, SLP (C) No. 10399 of 2020, and the

judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the

case of Som Nath and others v. State of Punjab and

others, CWP No. 1432 of 2012. In the said case, this

Court had modified the judgment passed by the learned

Single Judge to the extent that the services rendered by

the writ petitioner, prior to his regular appointment, i.e.

17.12.2024, will be counted only for the purpose of

pension.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, the

present Special Appeal is also being dismissed, by

observing that, after being regularized, the past services

2024:UHC:7270-DB

rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner herein shall

only be counted for the purpose of pension.

7. With the above observations, the present

Special Appeal stands dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand

disposed of accordingly.

______________ RITU BAHRI, C.J.

__________________ RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

Dt: 01st October, 2024 Rahul

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT

2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66e61bf4c84874198 3ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A192FCAD15C390A1 AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2024.10.04 12:18:33 +05'30'

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter