IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 125 of 2005 Ganesh Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others …Respondents. Sri J.C. Pande, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard Sri J.C. Pande, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner claims pensionary benefit for the period he has worked in a work-charged establishment. Admittedly under the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 a Government employee must put in at least 10 years of service in a regular establishment before being eligible for pensionary benefit. The petitioner, however, claims that though he has not put in 10 years of service in a regular establishment, nevertheless, if the number of years he has put in a “work-charged establishment” are also calculated for pensionary benefit the length of service would be more than 10 years and as such he is eligible for pension. Earlier a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 27.4.2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 225 of 2008 (State of U.P. and another vs. Pitamber Dutt Sanwal) relying upon a Government Order dated 1.7.1989 passed by the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh held that number of years put in work-charged establishment will also be calculated for penesionary benefits. All the same, a later 2 Division Bench of this Court having a different view referred the matter being Writ Petition No. 284 of 2004 (S/B) to a Full Bench. The reference was as follows :- “Whether, the Government Order dated 1st July 1989, referred in the judgment of the Division Bench (in Special Appeal No. 225 of 2008), State of U.P. and another Vs. Pitamber Dutt Sanwal, arisen out of Writ Petition No. 843 (S/S) of 2003) applies to work- charge employees, or not?” The Full Bench came to the conclusion that the said Government Order was not applicable in case of those who had worked in a work-charged establishment and therefore the period of service put in a work-charged establishment will not be calculated for pensionary benefit. Consequently, the Full Bench answered the question in negative. Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.2.2011 in the same matter has rejected the claim of the petitioner for calculating the work done by them in a work-charged establishment for pensionary benefits. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition claiming that certain facts were not placed before the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 284 of 2004 (S/B) (Madan Mohan Chaudhary vs. State and others). The petitioner has relied upon “Note” part of Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, which reads as under :- “(8) “Qualifying service” means service which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Civil Service Regulations : Provided that continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by 3 confirmation in the same or any other post except – (i) period of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionble establishment, (ii) period of service in a work-charged establishment, and (iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies, shall also be count as qualifying service. NOTE : - If service rendered in a non- pensionable establishment, work-charged establishment or in a post paid from contingencies falls between two periods of temporary service in a pensionable establishment or between a period of temporary service and permanent service in a pensionable establishment, it will not be constitute an interruption of service.” The reliance is placed upon the “Note” part of the aforesaid provision and the petitioner contends that even the period of service put in a work-charged establishment is liable to be calculated for pensionary benefits. In the considered view of this Court, it is a complete misleading of the said provision. The said provision only defines as to what would not constitute an “interruption of service”. It has nothing to do with calculation of pensionary benefits. Moreover, the matter already stands concluded by Full Bench and the Division Bench of this Court. Writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 5.5.2011 Avneet