Service As Work Charge Later Regularized Can Be Considered For Qualifying Service For Pension, Not For Computation Of Pension: Allahabad High Court

The bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta further clarified that “the petitioner's services rendered as a daily wager employee cannot be counted for the purpose of pension/quantum of pension. However, at the same time, after rendering of service as work charge employee for number of years and thereafter, when his service has been regularized, he cannot be denied the pension on the ground that he has not completed the qualifying service for pension.”

Case Background

In 1984, respondent-employee was initially engaged as daily wager on the post of Meth in Provincial Division, Public Works Department-1, Varanasi. Subsequently, he was posted in the work charge establishment from 01.11.1992 and was regularized on 01.07.2003. After retirement on 31.05.2019, employee made several representations before the appellant authorities for payment of revised pension, arrears with interest and other consequential benefits including counting the services of the petitioner rendered by him in work charge establishment in regular service.

Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Varanasi rejected his claim. Consequently, he approached the High Court challenging the rejection of representation and seeking mandamus for payment of revised pension. Relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, the Single Judge (writ Court) held that services rendered by the employee as a daily wager ought to be counted for computing pensionary service.

The order of the Single Judge was challenged by the authorities on grounds that the services rendered by the petitioner as work charge had been counted as qualifying services for pensionary benefits. However, the same cannot be counted for quantum of pension. It was argued that the petitioner cannot be regularized for the period served as work charge.

It was argued that part-time services cannot be treated as substantive and permanent for qualifying for pension under Clause (b) of Article 361 of the Civil Service Regulations. It was argued that Article 368 of CSR provides that service of an employee is not “qualifying” unless he holds a substantive post on a permanent establishment. Employee on work charge does not hold a substantive post, thus his part-time service cannot be counted for determining quantum of pension.

High Court Verdict

The Apex Court in Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others held that services rendered as work charge shall be counted as qualifying services for purpose of pension.

The Court observed that the judgment in Prem Singh has been clarified by the Supreme Court in Udai Pratap Thakur & another vs. the State of Bihar & others. The Apex Court in Udai Pratap Thakur dealt with Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013 of the State of Bihar and clarified that in Prem Singh, the Apex Court had only held that the number years served as work charge must be counted as qualifying services for pension. However, it was held that consideration of all those years would be restricted only for the purpose of the service to be counted for entitlement for pension and not for computing pension.

Referring to Prem Singh, the Apex Court held

“Therefore, this Court has observed and held that their services rendered as work charged shall be considered / counted for qualifying service. This Court has not observed and held that the entire service rendered as work charged shall be considered / counted for the quantum of pension / pension. The decision of this Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra), therefore, would be restricted to te counting of service rendered as work charged for qualifying service for pension.”

Relying on the aforesaid decisions, the bench headed by Justice Tripathi held that services of the employee as work charge have been counted for computing pensionary benefits.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: State of UP and 3 others vs. Arun Kumar Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 267 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 62 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 267

Click Here To Download/Read Judgment