- (1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction and order in the nature of mandamus inter alia commanding the respondents to grant the petitioners all the pensionary/retiral benefits consequent upon attaining the age of superannuation and for any other appropriate direction as considered suitable in the given circumstances of the case. The petitioners claim that they had been the work-charged employees of the respondents; they had put in a very long service and attained the age of superannuation. In the light of earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Narain Prasad V/s. State of U.P. the petitioners claim that they were entitled to be regularised in service as they have satisfied all the requirements to come within the scheme approved by this Court. They contend that because the respondents failed to implement the judgment and order aforementioned in letter and spirit, their services were not regularised. Had the respondents followed the directions given in the said judgment, they could have been regularised and consequently, they would have been entitled to grant of pension by taking their length of service into consideration. The respondents have filed a detailed counter-affidavit resisting the claim made by the petitioners in the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit it is pointed out that about 7744 employees were work-charged employees and 5516 muster roll employees; pursuant to the direction given by this Court and in terms of the schemes, the services of more than 5000 work-charged employees have been regularised since the years 1997 to 2000. In paragraph (D) of the counter-affidavit in regard to the pensionary benefits, it is stated thus: "(D) As regards the pensionary benefits, the work-charged employees are not entitled to the same because their services are different from the services of the regular employees. The services of work-charged employees are governed by provisions of para 669 of the Financial Handbook read with Articles 361 and 370 of the Civil Services Regulations and as such the work-charged employees are not entitled to the pensionary benefits. The petitioners are not entitled to any pensionary benefits. From a perusal of the abovementioned provisions it is evident that the petitioners are not entitled to any pensionary benefits and in these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners as regards pensionary benefits. It may be pointed out that the provisions of the Financial Handbook and Civil Services Regulations have not been challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions. A true and correct copy of relevant paras of the U.P. Financial Handbook is annexed and marked as Annexure R-2. The gratuity amount is being paid on completing superannuation age by work-charged employees."
(2.) In the said paragraph it is also stated that work-charged employees are entitled to gratuity and the same is being paid to them on their attaining the age of superannuation. It is again pointed out in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit that the services of work-charged employees are somewhat different from the services of the regular employees. The services of the work-charged employees are governed by the Financial Handbook, Vol. VI, paras 458 to 463 and 667 to 669, read with Articles 361 and 370 of the Civil Services Regulations. In their reply, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioners are not entitled to any pensionary benefits.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners strongly contended that having regard to the judgment of this Court in Raj Narain case aforementioned, the petitioners were certainly entitled to regularisation of their services having regard to the length of their services and taking note that they had satisfied the requirement of the scheme; merely because the respondent slept over or delayed regularisation of their services, they cannot be denied the pensionary benefits. He further urged that the principle of "last come must first go" should have been considered by the respondents, In the case of the petitioners the respondents have discriminated in not regularising their services.;