# Karta Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 42
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-01-28
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 1685 of 2016
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/karta-ram-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43455
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.
Civil Services Regulations-Regulation468-qualifying service for pension-work
charge employees after completing to 9
years 10 months 5 days regular serviceretired authorities considering Division
Bench Judgment-rejected claim-saying
work charge period shall not be counted
1 All. Karta Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
43
to qualifying service of 10 years -held-in
view of Regulation 468-fractions of half
year shall be equal to 3 month or above
to that-entitled for pensionary benefitsdirection for fresh consideration within 3
months issued-petition disposed of.
Held: Para-5
In the light of the said provision, as the
petitioner had put in 9 years 10 months
and 5 days in service, fraction of a half
year above three months is four months
and 5 days, therefore, the case appears to
be covered by Regulation 468 and the said
period is liable to be treated as complete
one-half year, which, if the facts as stated
by the petitioner are correct, entitle the
petitioner to ten years qualifying service
for pension, but this aspect of the matter
has not been considered while passing the
impugned order.
Case Law discussed:
(2015) 8 ADJ 716

## Text

42
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a statute, it would be open to the Court to
adopt an interpretation which, while being
in accord with the terms of the statute,
makes the statute workable. But equally in
this process, it would not be open to the
Court to re-write statutory provisions or to
mandate an act such as the payment of
salary in respect of an appointment which is
made otherwise than in accordance with the
statutory provisions and the rules. Article
21-A of the Constitution upon which
reliance has been placed by the learned
Single Judge in Sanjay Singh's case (supra)
mandates that the State shall provide free
and compulsory education to all children
between ages of six to fourteen in such
manner as the State may, by law, determine.
The law undoubtedly, has to be fair, just and
reasonable.
48. This Court in repeated judgments
has drawn the attention of the State to the
need to streamline the procedures in a line
of precedent from this Court culminating in
the judgment of the Full Bench in Santosh
Kumar Singh (supra). The observations of
this Court shall be taken up by the State
with a sense of the highest priority and with
all seriousness to ensure that a situation
does not emerge where vacancies of a
substantive nature are left unfilled over a
long period of time to the detriment of
education. The State Government must take
up the matter with necessary alacrity and
immediacy.
Conclusion
49. For these reasons, we have come
to the conclusion that the view of the
learned Single Judge in Sanjay Singh's
case (supra) cannot be upheld as laying
down the correct position in law. The
view of the learned Single Judge shall
stand,
accordingly,
overruled.
The
judgment in Pradeep Kumar (supra) is
upheld subject to the principles which, we
have enunciated in this judgment.
50. The second issue which has been
referred for decision before the Division
Bench is the scope of Section 16-E (11)
when read in the context of Sections 16,
22, 32 and 33-E of the Act of 1982. We
have already dealt with the interpretation
of these provisions in the course of the
judgment.
51. The reference to the Division
Bench shall stand answered in the
aforesaid terms. The record of these
proceedings shall now be remitted back to
the learned Single Judge, according to
roster, for disposal in the light of the
questions answered.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
Service Single No. 1685 of 2016
Karta Ram
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ganga Prasad Srivastava, Rishi Kumar
Tripathi
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Civil Services Regulations-Regulation468-qualifying service for pension-work
charge employees after completing to 9
years 10 months 5 days regular serviceretired authorities considering Division
Bench Judgment-rejected claim-saying
work charge period shall not be counted
1 All. Karta Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
43
to qualifying service of 10 years -held-in
view of Regulation 468-fractions of half
year shall be equal to 3 month or above
to that-entitled for pensionary benefitsdirection for fresh consideration within 3
months issued-petition disposed of.
Held: Para-5
In the light of the said provision, as the
petitioner had put in 9 years 10 months
and 5 days in service, fraction of a half
year above three months is four months
and 5 days, therefore, the case appears to
be covered by Regulation 468 and the said
period is liable to be treated as complete
one-half year, which, if the facts as stated
by the petitioner are correct, entitle the
petitioner to ten years qualifying service
for pension, but this aspect of the matter
has not been considered while passing the
impugned order.
Case Law discussed:
(2015) 8 ADJ 716
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
2. The petitioner herein claims to have
been appointed on Daily Wages as Beldar on
Muster Roll basis in the year 1977-73. He
claims that on 26.06.1997 his services were
regularized in terms of the then existing
Regularization Rules. He attained the age of
superannuation and retired from the service
of the opposite parties on 30.04.2007. As the
regular services rendered by him, which
alone have been counted for the purposes of
calculation of the qualifying services for
determination of pension payable, was only
nine years, ten months, five days, therefore,
he has been held to be disentitled to such
pension and has not been paid the same. As
per the facts narrated by the petitioner, he fell
short of the required qualifying services of
10 years only by one month and about
twenty five days.
3. It is rather strange that such
matters are coming up before this Court
for consideration despite there being a
specific provision under the said Service
Regulation i.e. Regulation 468 which
deals with such a situation and allows a
period of service more than three months
to be counted as six months.
4. The concerned authority while
passing
the
impugned
order
dated
05.07.2014 has rightly stated that the
services rendered on work charged basis
can not be counted for the purposes of
calculation of qualifying services, but has
omitted to consider the provisions of
Regulation 468 of the Civil Service
Regulations which provides that the
amount of pension that may be granted is
determined by length of service. In
calculating the length of qualifying
service, fractions of a half year equal to
three month and above shall be treated as
a complete one-half year and reckoned as
qualifying service.
5. In the light of the said provision, as
the petitioner had put in 9 years 10 months
and 5 days in service, fraction of a half year
above three months is four months and 5
days, therefore, the case appears to be
covered by Regulation 468 and the said
period is liable to be treated as complete
one-half year, which, if the facts as stated
by the petitioner are correct, entitle the
petitioner to ten years qualifying service for
pension, but this aspect of the matter has not
been
considered
while
passing
the
impugned order.
6. In view of the above, though in
view of the Division Bench judgment
rendered in Special Appeal (Defective)
No.23 of 2014 reported in (2015) 8 ADJ
716 the services rendered by the petitioner
44
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as a muster-roll or work-charge employee
cannot be counted for the purposes of
calculating the qualifying service for
pension, nevertheless, he is entitled to be
considered
for
the
benefit
of
the
provisions contained in Regulation 468 of
the Civil Service Regulations. The matter
is remanded back to the competent
authority for taking a fresh decision in
terms
of
the
observations
made
hereinabove within a period of six weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order
is produced before him. Consequences as
regards payment of pension and other
post-retirement benefits shall follow as
per rules based on the decision so taken.
7. It is open for the petitioner to claim
interest on the amount of pension payable if
the delay is on account of the opposite
parties by approaching the appropriate
forum as and when the cause of action
arises.
8. Considering the fact that such
petitions are coming up before this Court
everyday, let a copy of this judgment and
order be sent to the Chief Secretary, U.P.
and Principal Secretary, Karmik as also to
the Principal Secretary, Finance for
ensuring compliance of the said provision
at the time of calculation of qualifying
service of government servants who are
due to retire or have retired so that they
may not be compelled to approach this
Court unnecessarily.
9. This writ petition is disposed of in
the above terms.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
Service Single No. 1788 of 2015
Vidya Dhar Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Lucknow University, Lucknow & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd. Shameem Khan
Counsel for the Respondents:
Shashi Prakash Singh
Constitution of India, Art.-226-forfeiture of
salary-during suspension period-without
show cause notice-without opportunity to
explain-held-illegal-in view of O.P. Gupta
case-separate show cause notice is must
order quashed-with direction to proceed a
fresh-after show cause notice.
Held: Para-8
As no show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner therefore, the impugned order
to this extent is set aside and liberty is
given to the concerned authority to
proceed afresh if forfeiture of remaining
salary of the suspension of petitioner is
proposed by issuing a show cause notice
and
thereafter
take
an
appropriate
decision in accordance with law.
Case Law discussed:
(1987) 4 SCC 328.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
2. Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh has put
in appearance on behalf of the Lucknow
University.
3.
The petitioner has challenged the
order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Registrar,
Lucknow University by which the salary for
the period of suspension of the petitioner has
been forfeited by way of punishment.