(Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha, JJ.)
Habib Khan _______________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ___________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No.(s) 10806 of 2017 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7434 of 2016], decided on August 23, 2017
With
Civil Appeal No.(s) 10805 of 2017 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11725 of 2015] Civil Appeal No.(s) 10807 of 2017 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9991 of 2016]
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11725 of 2015.
2. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
3. The period of service rendered by the appellants was directed to be counted for computing ‘qualifying service’ for purposes of pension by the State Public Service Tribunal. Writ Petition No. 24 of 2007 filed by the State against the said order was dismissed1. The petition for special leave to appeal filed by the State against the order of dismissal of the Writ Petition was also dismissed by this Court. In between, a Full Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court took the view2 that the period of work-charged service cannot be counted for computation of the period of ‘qualifying service’. On the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Full-Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court, review of the order dismissing Writ Petition No. 24 of 2007 was sought which was allowed by order dated 27-7-20123. The said order dated 27-7-20123 was challenged before this Court and was dismissed4 as withdrawn. In the meantime, on the basis of the order passed in the review petition the matter was re-heard and the High Court by order dated 26-5-20155 held that the period of work-charged service cannot be counted for reckoning of the period of ‘qualifying service’. While the order dated 26-5-20155 is the subject matter of challenge in appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7434 of 2016 and in appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9991 of 2016, the order of the Full Bench is the subject matter of challenge in appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11725 of 2015.
4. Having recalled the facts germane to a consideration of the case, the question of law arising may now be adverted to.
5. The aforesaid question is no longer res integra in view of the facts enumerated herein after.
6. The relevant provisions under which the period of work-charged service is not to be counted for computation of ‘qualifying service’ in the State of Uttarakhand is Rule 370 of the Civil Service Regulations which is extracted below:
“370. Continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post shall qualify except-
i) periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment,
ii) periods of service in a work-charged establishment, and
(iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies.”
7. The pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules had been struck down by a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab6. The challenge by the State against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was negatived7 by this Court. The matter came up for consideration before this Court, once again, in the case of Punjab SEB v. Narata Singh8. While dealing with the said question this Court in paragraph 25 of the report held that the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was perfectly justified in striking down Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in the said Rules between ‘temporary and officiating service’ and ‘work-charged service’. On the said basis, this Court took the view that the period of work-charged service should be reckoned for purposes of computation of ‘qualifying service’ for grant of pension.
8. As already observed, the provisions of Rule 370 of the Civil Service Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakhand are pari materia with the provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, discussed above. If that is so, we do not see as to why the period of service rendered on work-charged basis by the appellants should not be counted for purposes of computation of ‘qualifying service’ for grant of pension. The pari materia provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules having been interpreted and understood in the above manner by this Court in Narata Singh8 we do not find any room for taking any other view except to hold that the appellants are entitled to reckon the period of work-charged service for purposes of computation of ‘qualifying service’ for grant of pension. We order accordingly; allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders9 passed by the High Court.
9. All necessary and consequential benefit in terms of the present order will be paid and granted by the State to the appellants forthwith and without any delay.
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 11725/2015
Habib Khan ____________________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
The State of Uttaranchal now Uttarakhand & Ors ______ Respondent(s)
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 3/2015 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING ON IA 4/2015 FOR [PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES] ON IA 6/2015)
WITH
SLP(C) NO. 9991/2016 (X)
SLP(C) NO. 7434/2016 (X)
Date : 23-08-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha, JJ.)
For parties (s) Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv.
Mr. Manohar Pratap, Adv.
Mr. Aneesh Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Aastha Vashistha, Adv.
Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR
Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv.
Mr. Aneesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Manohar Pratap, Adv.
Mr. Peeyush Bhatia, Adv.
Ms. Aastha Vashistha, Adv.
Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Adv.
Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
10. Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11725 of 2015.
11. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
12. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
1 State of Uttarakhand v. Mohan Singh, WP(S/B) no. 24 of 2007, order dated 13-5-2010(Utt)
2 Madan Mohan Chaudhary v. State of Uttarakand, 2010 SCC OnLine Utt 3273 : (2011) 98 AIC 950
3 State of Uttarakhand v. Mohan Singh, 2012 SCC OnLine Utt 1558
4 Habib Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, SLP (C) No. 29123 of 2012, order dated 30-4-2014 (SC)
5 State of Uttarakhand v. Mohan Singh, 2015 SCC OnLine Utt 2053
6 1988 SCC OnLine P&H 338 : AIR 1988 P&H 265 : (1988) 5 SLR 27
7 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 793 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 463
8 (2010) 4 SCC 317 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1025
9 Madan Mohan Chaudhary v. State of Uttarakahand, 2011 SCC OnLine Utt 60 : (2011) 128 FLR 910
