- (1.) This Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment dated 23 July 2013 of a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ-A No.32312 of 2011 filed by the appellant was dismissed.
(2.) The said writ petition was filed with a prayer that the provisions contained in Clause (ii) of Article 370 of Civil Services Regulations the Regulation, insofar as it denies service rendered in a work charged establishment to be computed as qualifying service for pension, be declared arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A further relief that was claimed in the writ petition was that the order dated 29 October 2010 passed by the Executive Engineer, Rihand Dam Construction Division, Sonbhadra rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for adding the period of service rendered by him in a work charged establishment for pension, should be set aside.
(3.) The learned Judge did not accept the plea of the writ petitioner for the reason that there was no pleading to substantiate his claim that the service rendered in a work charged establishment can be placed at par with the service rendered in a regular establishment and all that was relied upon by learned counsel for the writ petitioner during the course of the argument was the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. vs. Naratha Singh, 2010 4 SCC 317. The learned Judge has observed that the said decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board , on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the writ petitioner, would be of no benefit to the writ petitioner.;