IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 153 of 2011 Mr. Om Prakash ….…… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……….Respondents Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. Date of Judgment: 21.07.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Delay Condonation Application No. 7329 of 2011 Considering the averments made in the application for condonation delay in preferring the appeal and being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, we allow the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Special Appeal No. 153 of 2011 The appellant wanted to count the period of service he rendered in the work-charged establishment of the State for the purpose of fixation of his terminal dues. The writ petition was dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal, on the basis of the pronouncement made by a Full Bench of this Court. 2. Before the learned Single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, it was contended by the appellant that the ‘note’, appended under sub-Rule (8) of Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, has not been noticed by the Full Bench. A look at the ‘note’, set out in the judgment and order under appeal, makes it clear that rendering of service in work-charged establishment, as taken note of in the ‘note’, is in between temporary service and permanent service in pensionable establishment. 2 3. In the instant case the ‘note’ has no application, in as much as it is not the contention of the appellant that he was engaged in a work-charged establishment in between the period he was in a temporary service and later he came to the permanent service. 4. The learned Single Judge, having concluded thus while dismissing the writ petition, we find there is no scope of interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 21.07.2011 21.07.2011 Amit