The Allahabad High Court held that when the service of an employee has been regularised after rendering of service as work charge employee for several years, then he cannot be denied the pension on account that he did not complete the qualifying service for pension.

The Court held thus in a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court.

A Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed, “In view of above and the latest legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra) with regard to admissibility of pension and counting of period towards service, we are of the considered opinion 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.”

Standing Counsel Chandan Kumar represented the appellants while Advocate Anand Kumar Srivastava represented the respondent.

In this case, the respondent person was initially engaged in 1984 as daily wager on the post of Meth in Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Varanasi and subsequently, in compliance of the letters of the Chief Engineer, he was accorded posting in the work charge establishment with effect from 1992. Finally, his services were regularized in 2003 and after attaining the age of superannuation, he was retired from the service in 2019.

After retirement, he had made several representations before the respondent authorities for payment of revised pension, arrears with interest and other consequential benefits including counting the services of the respondent rendered by him in work charge establishment in regular service. Lastly, he had submitted an application before Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Varanasi and the said application was rejected. Aggrieved with this order, he filed the petition before the Single Judge which was allowed. Hence, the State approached the Division Bench.

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “The principle and ratio for awarding pensionary benefits has been explained and clarified in the case of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra) in which vide paragraph 6 it has been categorically held that ratio of the judgment is to be considered for giving benefit of old pension scheme by taking into account such period of ad hoc/work charge service, which will make good the shortfall towards qualifying period for making pension admissible. If the argument as is advanced by the opposite party-petitioner that earlier period rendered in work charge establishment is to be reckoned with the purpose of qualifying service and in case it is accepted in its entirety, the effect would be that regular appointment stands offered to such person/employee from the date of his initial inception in the department as temporary/ad hoc/ work charge appointment in service. This is neither the object of the rules, nor spirit of the judgment in Prem Singh's case.”

The Court added that the services of the respondent as work charge employee has already been computed for extending the benefits of pension and the pension has also been extended to him.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the special appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge.

Cause Title- State of UP and 3 others v. Arun Kumar Srivastava (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:59546-DB)


Appellants: Standing Counsel Chandan Kumar

Respondent: Advocates Anand Kumar Srivastava and Pratibha Asthana.

Click here to read/download the Judgment