HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 896 of 2008 (S/S) Tulsi Singh … Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and two others. … Respondents Sri C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the respondent/State. Dated: November 26, 2009: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for direction to the respondents to grant him gratuity as well as pension w.e.f. 30.4.2005 alogwith 18% interest. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as ‘Mate’ on daily wage basis in the Temporary Division, Public Works Department (hereinafter referred as PWD), Thatyur, District Tehri Garhwal in the year 1995 and continued to discharge the duties of ‘Mate’ till January, 1986. Thereafter, by the order of Assistant Engineer, PWD, Thatyur, District Tehri Garhwal, he was granted regular pay scale w.e.f. 13.01.1986. On 30.05.1994 a Departmental Circular was issued from the office of Chief Engineer, PWD, Lucknow in which it was provided that if any post becomes vacant within the concerned region on account of superannuation, death or resignation of any employee, the vacant post will be filled by regularizing the employee working in the work charge establishment of the department on the condition that such employee has completed three years’ continuous service in the work charge establishment. Thereafter, pursuant to the 2 departmental Circular dated 30.05.1994, the services of the petitioners were regularized on the post of ‘Mate’ vide order dated 09.11.1995 issued by Executive Engineer Temporary Division, PWD of Thatyur, District Tehri Garhwal. The petitioner continued to work as ‘Mate’ till he retired on 30.04.2005. After his retirement, the petitioner submitted an application before the departmental authorities for granting him superannuation pension and retirement gratuity for rendering 19 years’ of service on the post of ‘Mate’ on regular pay scale in the department. The application was forwarded by the Executive Engineer Temporary Division,PWD Thatyur, District Tehri Garhwal to the higher departmental authorities for granting him retirement gratuity and other retirement dues. But the case of the petitioner for grant of pension by the departmental authorities was refused on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 10 years’ service on the post of ‘Mate’ as regular permanent employee. 3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have come up with the case that the petitioner was appointed as regular employee in the regular establishment on 09.11.1995, thus the services rendered by him as regular employee in the department was only 9 years 7 months and 28 days and not 10 years, as required by the Govt. Order dated 01.07.1989, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get pensionary benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that the petitioner was appointed on the post of ‘Mate’ on regular pay scale of Rs. 775-12-955-EB- 14-1025 on 13.01.1986 and his pay scale was fixed at Rs. 775/- and after his regularization on the post of ‘Mate’ 3 with effect from 09.11.1995, the petitioner continued on said regular pay scale till the date of his retirement i.e. 30.04.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner has worked on regular pay scale in the PWD on the post of ‘Mate’ for more than 19 years’ i.e. 13.01.1986 to 30.04.2005, there is no justification to deprive him of his legitimate rights to get pension from the department. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the services rendered by the petitioner from the year 1986 to 2005, during which period he was granted regular pay scale, should have also been calculated for the purpose of pensionary benefit. He further submitted that in the Govt. Order dated 01.07.1989 it is provided that the employees who have completed 10 years service on temporary basis in the department and retire on their superannuation, they will be regularized on the post held by them and they would also be entitled to get pension and retirement gratuity in the same manner as the permanent employee gets after his retirement. He further advanced his arguments that the position of the petitioner is at the better footing than of a temporary employee who retires from service without being regularized, as the petitioner stood regularized in the year 1995. He relied on the Govt. Order dated 01.07.1989 issued by the U.P. Govt. wherein it has been provided that the employee who has completed 10 years of service on temporary basis, without being regularized in the department, would be entitled to get superannuation pension and retirement gratuity in the same manner as a permanent employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 393 (SS) 2004 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Special 4 Appeal 93/2004 and submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgments, as on facts the petitioner’s case is also on the similar footing. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that since the services rendered by the petitioner as regular employee were less than 10 years, the petitioner cannot be granted pensionary benefit. He further submitted that the services rendered by the petitioner as temporary employee, prior to his regularization, cannot be counted for granting him pensionary benefits. 6. I have gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 393 (SS) 2004 and in Special Appeal No. 93/2004 and I find that the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 393(SS) 2004 Anand Singh vs. State was also engaged as ‘Mate’ on 27.12.1974 in PWD. Subsequently, he was appointed as the work charge employee on 26.01.1985 and thereafter on 10.06.1995 his services were regularized. He retired from service on 31.10.2000. The writ petition was allowed and lateron Special Appeal No. 93/2004 preferred by the respondents was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court with the following observations:- “A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has served in the PWD for more than 26 years. Even a work charge employee, who has worked in the department for a considerable period and has not been regularized, is entitled to the pensionary benefits. Hence the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the petitioner is entitled to get the pensionary benefits.” 7. Thus, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Writ 5 Petition no. 393 (SS) 2004 and in Special Appeal No. 93/2004 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 30.04.2005. The respondents are also directed to make payment of gratuity to the petitioner as per Rules. 9. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) 26.11.2009: NCM: