ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Petitioners have assailed the Government Order dated 24.5.2017, and consequential order dated 27.5.2017, passed by the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, and a further prayer is made to direct the respondents to continue to make GPF deductions from their salary and not to compel them to fill up pension forms, as per new pension scheme introduced on 28.3.2005 to be effective from 1.4.2005. The Government Order dated 24.5.2017, under challenge, provides as under:- JUDGEMENT_9_LAWS(ALL)9_2017.jpg
(2.) The consequential order of the Executive Engineer contains a direction requiring part-time tubewell operators, who have been regularized after 1.4.2005, to apply under the new pension scheme by filling up requisite forms, and also provides that their GPF be no longer deducted. It is admitted that all the petitioners have been regularized after 1.4.2005 and are therefore covered by the new pension scheme. The issue as to whether petitioners are covered under the new pension scheme, introduced on 28.3.2005, as they have been regularized after 1.4.2005 is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.240 of 2009 (State of U.P. v. Dukh Haran Singh) examined the question as to whether services of such part-time tubewell operators, prior to their regularization, be counted towards qualifying service for payment of pension. After examining the issue extensively, this Court proceeded to hold as under:- "Here, in the present case, I have already observed that the service rendered by the writ petitioner prior to his regularization by order dated 25.9.1997 does not qualify for grant of pension as in terms of Regulations 361 and 370 of the Regulations, services rendered prior to that are neither substantive, permanent nor temporary. In my opinion, the service rendered by the writ petition subsequent to his regularization on 25.9.1997 only qualifies for pension and he having retired before rendering 10 years continuous service, is not entitled to get pension. In view of the aforesaid, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge that the writ petitioner had rendered 32 years service and was entitled for pension cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 228.8.2008 passed by the learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 1378 of 2008 is set aside but without any order as to costs."
(3.) The judgment in State of U.P. v. Dukh Haran Singh (supra) was challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.27713 of 2009, which came to be dismissed by following orders:- "Heard Mr. Subramonium Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition and Mr. Ratnakar Dash learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. (2) The petitioner's claim for pensionary benefits was rejected by the High Court by impugned order dated 21.7.2009 and that is why the present special leave petition has been filed. (3) The petitioner's services came to be regularized on 28th September, 1997 in consequence of the Rules for regularization which was framed in the year 1996. The petitioner was retired on 30th November, 2005 and demanded the retiral benefits including pensionary benefits. Since as per the relevant rules minimum qualifying service for pension is 10 years, the petitioner had not fulfilled that minimum requirement. That being so, the petitioner could not be held to be eligible for pension though be would be entitled to gratuity and other benefits subject to applicable rules. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. (4) The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly." ;