SATPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
Alok Singh, J. -
(1.) Undisputedly, petitioner had worked for 9 year 3 month as a regular employee on the post of Dozer Operator and retired on 31.03.2008 attaining the age of superannuation. As per prevailing law, 10 years substantive service is required for grant of pension. Petitioner moved a representation before the respondents requesting them to count the period he worked as work-charged employee for pension purposes. That representation was rejected vide order dated 23.10.2010 (Annexure No. 5 to the petition). Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2010 (2) UD 458 and has argued that learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad has held that period of work-charged employment shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefit. He further submits that SLP filed against the judgment passed in Rameshwar Prasads case has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 17.01.2011 (Annexure No. 4 to the petition), therefore, judgment passed by learned Single Judge in Rameshwars case (supra) must be followed.
(3.) Full Bench of this Court in the case of Madan Mohan Chaudhary v. State of Uttaranchal reported in 2011 (1) UD 6 has held that there is a different between temporary employee and work-charged employee. Service rendered in work-charged establishment before regularization is not a temporary service. Therefore, period of work-charged employment cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.