AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J.ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI,J. - (1.) This writ petition, inter alia, seeks to challenge the validity of Regulation 370 (I) of the U.P. Civil Service Regulations and a further prayer for computation of past services rendered in work charge establishment has been made for the purpose of payment of pension. In so far as the validity of Regulation 370 is concerned, it is to be noted that the same has been questioned on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) At the very outset we may note that the position of law and the view expressed in a Full Bench judgement of this Court rendered in Writ -A No. 60352 of 2015 as regards the computation of past services rendered by an employee in a work charge establishment is already settled and the opinion so expressed for ready reference may be extracted as under: "We accordingly conclude that the judgments of this Court which proceeded to follow Narata Singh failed to bear in mind the distinguishing features of the statutory regime in the backdrop of which it came to be delivered. As noted above, Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules had been struck down. The absence of Rule
(3.) 17(ii) from the statute book formed the bedrock upon which Narata Singh was decided. Significantly, Regulation 370 continues to govern the field and in clear and unambiguous terms provides that the period of service rendered in a work charged establishment is liable to be excluded while computing qualifying service. 3 We therefore hold that the period of service spent in a work charged establishment is not liable to be countenanced for the purposes of computing qualifying service. The law in this regard stands correctly declared and elucidated in Jai Prakash, Navrang Lal Srivastava and Ram Nagina. The decision in Panchu and the other judgments of this Court which have followed the line of reasoning adopted therein shall accordingly stand overruled.;