- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed on 11.5.1984 as a Sample Collector on work charge establishment in the department of respondent no.3. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that the services of the petitioner have been regularised on 15.6.2011. The petitioner attained age of superannuation on 31st December, 2011. Now the petitioner is seeking the direction to the respondents to pay the post retiral benefits including the pension. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed relief no. (A) and has submitted that the period during which the petitioner has served as a work charge employee may be considered for the purposes of pension and other post retiral benefits.
(3.) Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the period during which the petitioner served as a work charged employee cannot be calculated for the purposes of pension in view of Regulation 370 of Civil Services Regulation. In support of contention, he relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bansh Gopal v. State of U.P., 2006 3 ESC 2248 and in the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Pratap Shukla, 2008 3 ESC 2123, which has been followed by the learned Single Judge in a recent judgment in the case of Shri Rama Shankar Pandey (Seenchpal) v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 23873 of 2011) and other connected writ petitions.;