High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.09.2017 passed by the respondent No. 4 to the extent it computes the period running from 2004 till he attained the age of superannuation in the year 2017 and thereby ignoring the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to 2004 in the work charge establishment.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the judgment in the case of Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2019) 10 SCC 516 the period rendered in the work charge establishment is required to be counted towards qualifying service and for pension and hence, the period rendered by the petitioner in the work charge establishment ought to have been taken into consideration.

4. On the contrary it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that petitioner retired in the year 2017 and hence he qualified for pension for having attained the qualified period for pension which is ten years as his service came to be counted from the year 2004 untill he retired in the year 2017.

5. It is next contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the principle of law laid down in the case of Prem Singh (supra) would be attracted in the event an employee while discharged his duties in work charge establishment and retired after his regularization without getting the benefit of pension scheme for the reason that during interregnum period he discharged his duties in the work charge establishment that could not be taken into consideration for relevant Civil Service Regulation. He submits that the Prem Singh's (supra) judgment has further been clarified by the Supreme Court itself in a later authority of Udai Pratap and others v. State of Bihar 2 WRIA No. 4120 of 2018 and others 2023 0 Supreme (SC)429 in which the Court has held that the principle of law laid down in the case of Prem Singh (supra) would be attracted only to the extent of taking service rendered in the work charge establishment to meet the requirement of qualifying period for pension.

5. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the records, I fund no quarrel between the parties as to the claim of old pension benefit to the petitioner but the limited question that arise for consideration is whether the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the work charge establishment is required to be counted further towards qualifying service to inhouse pension. The judgment in the case of Udai Pratap (supra), therefore, becomes relevant here. The relevant paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "6.2 Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellants that their entire services rendered as work charged should be considered and/ or counted for the purpose of pension/ quantum of pension is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. If the same is accepted, in that case, it would tantamount to regularizing their services from the initial appointment as work charged. As per the catena of decisions of this Court, there is always a difference of distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work charged employee working under work charged establishment. the work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post. They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension/ quantum of pension. However, at the same time, after rendering of service as work charged for number of years and thereafter when their services have been regularized, they cannot be denied the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension. That is why, the service rendered as work charged is to be counted and/ or considered for the purpose of qualifying service for pension, which is provided under Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013.

6.3 Now, insofar as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is concerned, the reliance placed upon the said decision is absolutely misplaced. In the said case, this Court was considering the validity of Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, under which the entire service rendered as work charged was not to be counted for qualifying service for pension. To that, this Court has observed and held that after rendering service as work charged for number of years in the Government establishment/ department, denying them the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension would be unjust, arbitrary and illegal. 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 3 WRIA No. 4120 of 2018 the counting of service rendered as work charged for qualifying service for pension". (Emphasis added)

6. From the observations made qua the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prem Singh's Judgment, it is clear that the principles of law laid down in Prem Singh’s case would not be attracted in the present case as petitioner has already attained the qualifying period for pension and is receiving pension. Petitioner since claims to be regularized in substantive capacity in the year 2004 under the rules of regularization and if the previous period is also counted for qualifying service then the net result would be that petitioner’s regularization would take effect from back date i.e. from the date he entered in the work charge establishment in the year 1997. The legal position is very clear, a person gets substantive appointment on the date he is regularized in service and hence, regularization cannot be given effect from the back date unless and until the regularization rules do provides for the same or the regularization order provide for the same. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been regularized w.e.f. the year 1997 and hence, I do not find any force in the petition.

8. In view of the above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Nadeem NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.09.2017 passed by the respondent No. 4 to the extent it computes the period running from 2004 till he attained the age of superannuation in the year 2017 and thereby ignoring the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to 2004 in the work charge establishment.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the judgment in the case of Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2019) 10 SCC 516 the period rendered in the work charge establishment is required to be counted towards qualifying service and for pension and hence, the period rendered by the petitioner in the work charge establishment ought to have been taken into consideration.

4. On the contrary it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that petitioner retired in the year 2017 and hence he qualified for pension for having attained the qualified period for pension which is ten years as his service came to be counted from the year 2004 untill he retired in the year 2017.

5. It is next contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the principle of law laid down in the case of Prem Singh (supra) would be attracted in the event an employee while discharged his duties in work charge establishment and retired after his regularization without getting the benefit of pension scheme for the reason that during interregnum period he discharged his duties in the work charge establishment that could not be taken into consideration for relevant Civil Service Regulation. He submits that the Prem Singh's (supra) judgment has further been clarified by the Supreme Court itself in a later authority of Udai Pratap and others v. State of Bihar 2 WRIA No. 4120 of 2018 and others 2023 0 Supreme (SC)429 in which the Court has held that the principle of law laid down in the case of Prem Singh (supra) would be attracted only to the extent of taking service rendered in the work charge establishment to meet the requirement of qualifying period for pension.

5. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the records, I fund no quarrel between the parties as to the claim of old pension benefit to the petitioner but the limited question that arise for consideration is whether the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the work charge establishment is required to be counted further towards qualifying service to inhouse pension. The judgment in the case of Udai Pratap (supra), therefore, becomes relevant here. The relevant paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "6.2 Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellants that their entire services rendered as work charged should be considered and/ or counted for the purpose of pension/ quantum of pension is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. If the same is accepted, in that case, it would tantamount to regularizing their services from the initial appointment as work charged. As per the catena of decisions of this Court, there is always a difference of distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work charged employee working under work charged establishment. the work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post. They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension/ quantum of pension. However, at the same time, after rendering of service as work charged for number of years and thereafter when their services have been regularized, they cannot be denied the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension. That is why, the service rendered as work charged is to be counted and/ or considered for the purpose of qualifying service for pension, which is provided under Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013.

6.3 Now, insofar as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is concerned, the reliance placed upon the said decision is absolutely misplaced. In the said case, this Court was considering the validity of Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, under which the entire service rendered as work charged was not to be counted for qualifying service for pension. To that, this Court has observed and held that after rendering service as work charged for number of years in the Government establishment/ department, denying them the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension would be unjust, arbitrary and illegal. 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 3 WRIA No. 4120 of 2018 the counting of service rendered as work charged for qualifying service for pension". (Emphasis added)

6. From the observations made qua the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prem Singh's Judgment, it is clear that the principles of law laid down in Prem Singh’s case would not be attracted in the present case as petitioner has already attained the qualifying period for pension and is receiving pension. Petitioner since claims to be regularized in substantive capacity in the year 2004 under the rules of regularization and if the previous period is also counted for qualifying service then the net result would be that petitioner’s regularization would take effect from back date i.e. from the date he entered in the work charge establishment in the year 1997. The legal position is very clear, a person gets substantive appointment on the date he is regularized in service and hence, regularization cannot be given effect from the back date unless and until the regularization rules do provides for the same or the regularization order provide for the same. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been regularized w.e.f. the year 1997 and hence, I do not find any force in the petition.

8. In view of the above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Nadeem NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad