Case: HABIB KHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

3. The period of service rendered by the appellants was directed to be counted for computing qualifying service for purposes of pension by the State Public Service Tribunal. Writ Petition No.24 of 2007 filed by the State against the said order was dismissed. The petition for special leave to appeal filed by the State against the order of dismissal of the Writ Petition was also dismissed by this Court. In between, a Full Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court took the view that the period of work-charged service cannot be counted for computation of the period of qualifying service. On the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Full-Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court, review of the order dismissing Writ Petition No.24 of 2007 was sought which was allowed by order dated 27th July, 2012. The said order dated 27th July, 2012 was challenged before this Court and was dismissed as withdrawn. In the meantime, on the basis of the order passed in the review petition the matter was re-heard and the High Court by order dated 26th May, 2015 held that the period of work-charged service cannot be counted for reckoning of the period of qualifying service. While the order dated 26th May, 2015 is the subject matter of challenge in appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7434 of 2016 and in appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9991 of 2016, the order of the Full Bench is the subject matter of challenge in appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11725 of 2015.

Reasoning:
5. The aforesaid question is no longer res integra in view of the facts enumerated herein after.6. The pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules had been struck down by a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and ors., 1988 (5) SLR 27.  The challenge by the State against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was negatived by this Court. The matter came up for consideration before this Court, once again, in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and anr. v. Narata Singh and anr., (2010) 4 SCC 317.  While dealing with the said question this Court in paragraph 25 of the report held that the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was perfectly justified in striking down Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in the said Rules between temporary and officiating service and work-charged service. On the said basis, this Court took the view that the period of work-charged service should be reckoned for purposes of computation of qualifying service for grant of pension.7. As already observed, the provisions of Rule 370 of the Civil Service Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakhand are pari materia with the provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, discussed above. If that is so, we do not see as to why the period of service rendered on work-charged basis by the appellants should not be counted for purposes of computation of qualifying service for grant of pension.