High Court · 2025

n under Article 226 of the Cgnstitutign of lndia praying that in the ?ffidavit filed thereyyith, the High Court may be i.q ^tl.l-t o":: er dilectio4 more particularty pne in the nelure of writ of [r:-': Mapdamus 1r :",:n sf the ree.pondents i! nor counrins the pasr 1.,::.111" temporqry qg rendered by the petitioner in thq contingent estaplishment from 9e oEle 9t fheir initiql appointment to till the date of reggllarizaJion tor qommqncement of qualifying servige a$ per G.O.Ms.Nq..t56,, Finance and Planning (FW.PEN.1) Department, dated 2gl}4t1g83, for the purpose ,o ,"n.ion pf pension haSed on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court ir1 tt " "r.l ot prem Singh V$. State of Uttar pradesh and others in Civil Appea, -;. ;; ;; 2019 and batQh ot o2togrzolg, and the same was reported in (zo2o) r sccti ano s) 1 and (2019)10 scc 516, and in the case of Habib Khan Verses State of uttarakhand and others in civir Appear No.10806 0f 2017 and batch dt. , 23tOBl2O17, which v/as reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L and S) 28, (:2019) 10 SCC 542,and in Review Petition ( C ) No.9 of 2018, dt 1610112018, in Civil Appeal No' 10g06 0f 2017, in thr: case of state of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Habib Khan and others and the samr: was reported an (2020) I SCC (L and S) 31 (:l)' (2019) 1Q SCC 545 anfl basing on the Division Bench Judgments qf this HonQurablq $ou( i6 WP ryC 9291 of :2016, dt 17l03ll011' and the Division Bqnch Qrders of the Honourable A P tjlgn Qqprt in WF Np 1425 ot 2019, dt 15/1Q12019' qnd lhe orders of thig. Honaurable Court in WP No.177Qg of ?019, dt ?g,hoD017, gF highly iilegal, arbitrAry, unjrtst pnconstitulional againot the prinFiples of nalural justiqE , eqqity end falr plav pnd prav-q lo dieQl the respandenlg herein tq qgunt lhe Pqg: qeryice of Pqlltioner herein in tQmpotary aaPaqity in the cQntingqnl Fbgorptign pqtegoly fo[ thp pL]fPosF Qf cpmmeQcement of qglqlifylns service tQr sanption Pf pellsion an{ giher [enefilq and alFo gratuity qs pgr thQ grders of the H9!Purq!19 {!glt cgUrt gf flllaheQad ip the oase ef $m! f,rishns Bembi Vp. Apppllet'e autherlty dl.25lQ$t2Q19, to the Petitionel herein. ef+pte "suppq4 pgtitigq under Sectiqn 151 QPO praying that in thg cirqg;'nstanges state( in of the pelition, thq High Court may be pleased to direc! thq Fffidavit tilpp in Ihe respondenls helein lo consider the casq of lhe Felitiongr, tq ogynt the Prq: gbpornlien gefvice pf the Petitioner 9! tempQr?ry capaeity fotr coqrrppnc-emeqt gf qualifying sqryice to sanqtion penoion and qther benefitp ag per G,O.Mq'No.l50 Finencg and tlannitg (F!V PEN.1) QqPartment, dated Q$lOll1pB3 ppndillg order er o'rdqre aq lbfs Hgiloulable Qourt l4ay deeln fit aod proper in the gi1cun1stalqgq ,'':|: of the case. Qqgnse! for lhe PEtltiongl: SRI CH,QANESH Eil;";i ro5 tiie Regponitents: cP FoR sERVlcEs-ll The Cogrt qa{e the following; ORDER drl-.:--r.,! HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA w RIT P oN No 307AI of 2o2 1 -.' D Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on beharf of the petitioner and the rearned Government pleader for Services_ff appearing on behalf of the respondents. T o praver as under: .....to a t c issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not counting the past temporary service rendered by the petitioner in the contingent establishment from the date of their initiar appointment to ti, the date of regularization for service as per G.o.M, ,#:H:::::.T;,T,r; (FW.pEN.1) Department, dated 29_04_1983, for the purpose to sanctior judsment or tne non,;J:,:H::",T:: ;J.j:: of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar pradesh and others in Civit Appeat No. 6798 of 2OI9 and batch dt. 02_ O9-2Ot9, and the sar scc(L&s) 1 & (201e)10::: ,":., *1;f:1,: 2 SN,J W.P.No.30?81 OF 2021 of Habib Khan Verses State of Uttarakhand ,and others; in Civil Appeal No.10806 of 2OL7 and batch dt. 23-08-2017, which was reported in (2020,t 1 SCC (L&S) 28, (20t9) 10 SCC 542, and in Review Petition (C) No. 9 of 2018, dt. 16_01_2018, in Ctivit Appeal No. 10806 of ZOl7, in the case of State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Habib Khan and others and the same was reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 31 (1), (2019) 10 SCC 545 and basing on l:he Division Bench Judgements of this Hon,ble Court in W.P. lJo. 8201 of 20t6, dt.I7_03_2016, and the Divisio,r Bench orders of the Hon'ble A.p. High Cor.rrt in WP No. L425 of 2019, dt. 15_10_2019, and the orders of this Hon,ble Court in Wp No.17700 of 2016, dt.2O-O6-20L7, as highly iltegal, arbitrary, unjust, u n constitution a I against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play and prays to direct t:he respondents herein to count the pre_ absorption service of petitioner herein in tempora ry capacity in the contingent category for the purpose of comrnencement of qualifying service for sanction of pension and other benefits and also gratuity as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Krishna Bembi Vr:;. Appellate authority dt. 25-OS_2015, to the Petitionelr herein and pass such order or orders in the interest of justice.,, i ) Y J SNJ W.P.No.307El OF 2021

3. The specific grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition pertains to the inaction of the respondents in not counting the past temporary service rendered by the petitioner in the contingent establishment from the date of petitioner's initial appointment to till the date of regularization for commencement of qualifying service as per G.O.Ms.No.156, Finance and Planning (FW.PEN.1) Department , dated 29.04.1983 for the purpose of sanction of pension based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh'and Others in Civil Appeal No.679B of 2019 and batch, dated

02.09.2019 reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 1 & (2019) 10 SCC 516, and in the case of Habib Khan Vs. State of Uttarkhand and Others in Civil Appeal No.10806 of 2Ol7 & batch, dated 23.O8.20t7 reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 28, (2019) 10 SCC 542 and in Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2018, dated 16.01.2018, in Civil Appeal No.10806 of 2017, in case of State of Uttarakhand and Others Vs. Habib Khan and Others and reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 31(1), (2019) 10 SCC 545 and the Division Bench judgment of tnis court in w.P.No.8201 0f 2076, dated 17.03.2016 and the 4 SNJ \r-.P.No.3{r?8t OF 2021 judgment of this Court in W.P.No.17700 of 2016, dated 20.06.201-7. Aggrieved by said inaction of the respondents, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petitirrn

4. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the orders of this Court dated 18.03.2025 passed in 10046 of 2O2O and order dated 24.11.2022t passed in W.p.No.73 43 of 2ltg, hence, the present writ petition courd be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order

5. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_Il appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submisr;ions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. r o A D

6. The Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 77.03.2016 in W.p.No.B201 of 2016 very clearty held that the Tribunal righUy came to the conclusion that temporary t 1" I 5 SNJ W.P.No.307El OF 2021 service shall be couoted as gualifying service for the purpose of pension under Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised pension Rules, 19g0.

7. Under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 20.06.2017 passed in W.p.No.177OO of 2016 filed by one Sri P. Dasharadham, before this Court for the same relief as prayed for in the present Writ petition, the orders passed in W.P.No.177OO of 2016 dated 20.06.20t7 were implemented by the respondents therein vide Lr.No.6047 /CRP&RE/C-2/2018, dated 10. 1O.2018 and vide Ietter Rc. No. B tO / 4t7 O / ZO t5, dated OB. 1 0. 2O 18. 8 (2020) 1 The Aoex Court in the i udomen t reDortedin )i n Prem SinqhvS teofU tta r t Dara 36 observedasunder: c( Prad esh and others, . "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the J 6 SN.J W.P.\o.30781 OF 2021 In the I f o o services be regularized of such em ployees. w t It would not be Proper to regulate them o e ion of reg ularization as otheri have been reg ularized, we di rect that their service s be treated as for considerat it is made clear that they a regula r one. However, shall not be entitled to cla iming anY dues of difference in wages had theY been continued in se rvice re'qularlY before aftaining the age- of suPerann uation. Thev v h e v r s t r s m h r s r 9 r o 2 6 n d as u nder: u*"ru$us**ffi -il{:'r{il85J9,"'iffi $i+ffEi5 f;: " BIII1qi [i.i,i ; i;,1.ml*::1,?^#l'i:i ti'nl?..?*?li X3ili"i'XJ'''"" t" I ;i !' e-.Pu nja b civi I 'i,,':l,idtlid:.Ii'!flill';';i.".,'i:";""['::ni,.:'v i'f ;TJll'li':ff f of work-charged ser :""Hil;"5:Xtu;?1ii::H:J."',""',. 7 SNJ W.P-No.30781 OF 202t re., purposes of computation of 'qualifying service', grant of pension.

7. As already observed, the provisions of Regulation 370 of the Civil Services 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 Sing hwedo not find a v room for takinq anv o her view exceDt to hold that the aoo lla nts are entitled to ckon the oeriod of work- r DurDoses of comouta iori of charo d service "oualifw nq service for orant of oension We order acco rdinolv, al!ow these aooeals and set aside the imouoned ord ers Dassed bv the Hioh urt."

10. ctm ilrr. I Ati, w :c taLan b a Anav f ou * iudqment dated 18.O2.2O22 in the State of Guiarat and others v Talsibhai Dh niibhai Patel ob rvlno as follows: "It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The cahnot be oermitted to take the benefit of its for 3O vears and thereafter to con nd that an emolovee who has rendered 3O vears continues lon i es rvt I not ------------:11 8 SNJ W.P.No.30?81 OF 202t nothi q but unre sonable. a welfare State, the State as such uqht not to have taken uch a stand- In the resent case the Hioh Court has not commifted anv error in directinq the State to oav Densionarv benefits to the resoondent w o has retired after renderino more than 3O vears service. Hence, the Special Leave petition stands d ism is;sed. "

11. Takino into consider ation:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Services-Il, appearang on behalf of the respondents, c) The orders of this Court dated 18.O3.2O2S passed in W.P.No. 10046 ol 2O2O and orders dated 24.1L.2O22 passed an W.p.No.7343 of 2O19 and d) The iudoments of the various Courts en listed below (Referred and ext acted a e) ..? iit r'rri'i+r,-!,". . , \ \ 9 SN'J W.P,No.3O78l OF 2021 i; :uoemeni"t;;";;o.' e",,"1 or Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated I7.O3.2OL6 passed in W.P.No.8ZOL ol 24L6, ii) Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated 2O-O6-2OL7 Passed in W.P.No.177OO of 2O16, iii) The judgment of the Apex Court in Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2O2O) l SCC (L&S), iv) The judgment of the Apex Court in Habib Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in , (2019) 10 SCC s42, v) The judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Gujarat and others Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, dated .18.02.2022, , I The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petit'oner to count the pre-service of the petitioner on temporary capacity for commencement of qualifying service for sanction of pension and other benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.156, Finance and Planning (FW'PEN'1) l0 SN,J '\ .P.No.30781 OF 2021 Department, dated 29.04.1983 in accordance to law duly considering the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitioner herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall sta,nd crosed' //TRUE COPY// *m+sg"'"'*r ,r"r,oNbrr,"t* To t. 2 3 4 b 0 7 q I PSK BS ll:{!r:'s1,8::,:1#fs!iffi ffi il:::::l'l'"ffi l.:':':i,::,." 1it'Effi*l$gff1gfiffi f1-,,{,'!ffi ,iffi ffi ,, #iHftf i**Uqm'$3{itih'ffi t"1,1:':il;Tieansana4! uvoerabed. [Qu tl Tfro CQ Copies -'/4 HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.30781 ot 2021 f?t u & o ,J- eLA&( 1 s o-t = I t+H:) ? * a l.) I n a' a4 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS €r- 14 '7J l I