# Ram Deo Tewari v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1436
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-12-16
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 584 of 1998
- **Bench:** Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-deo-tewari-v-state-of-u-p-43337
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C.
Civil Services Regulations Art.-370-Pension
benefits-work charged employee-after 3
years 10 months and 7 days regularizationretired -whether period of working in work
charge establishment countable for pension
purpose ?-held-'no'-reasons disclosed.
Held: Para-11
As indicated above, the service of the
petitioner in the regular establishment is
only for a period of 3 years,10 months
and 21 days, he is not entitled to get the
pensionary benefits as claimed by hi.
Further, for the reasons indicated above,
t he services performed by the petitioner
in the work charged establishment are
not liable to be counted as qualifying
services for the purposes of payment of
post-retiral /terminal benefits.
Case Law discussed:
2014 (2) AWC 1771; 2010 (8) ADJ 664; (2009)
3 SCC 661; (1979) 4 SCC 440; (1997) 2 SCC
517

## Text

1436
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
324 and that laid down in the case of
Rajkot Municipal Corporation Vs. Union
of India (Supra), stands on record. The
petitioner railways cannot avoid the
liability of payment of service charges,
however, no property tax can be levied
upon the property of the Railways.
11. Since the demand under challenge
is stated to be for the year 2011-12, we
deem it fit and proper to provide that the
petitioners may deposit the entire money as
demanded under protest within one month
from today. Thereafter they may make an
application before the Secretary of Nagar
Vikas U.P. Shashan for constitution of
Mediation Committee, on which the
Mediation Committee comprising of a
representative of Central Government, a
representative of concerned Municipal
Corporation and a Senior representative
(preferably the Secretary In-charge of
Department of Municipal Administration)
shall be constituted within one month of the
receipt of such request. The Committee
shall determine the issues as may be raised
by parties in the matter of levy and
collection of service charges. The amount
deposited by the petitioners in terms of the
order passed by us today, shall abide by the
decision to be taken by the Mediation
Committee. The Mediation Committee shall
finalize the proceedings within two months
by means of a reasoned order.
12. The writ petition is disposed of.
13. Interim order, if any, stands
discharged.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR
ARORA, J.
Service Single No. 584 of 1998
Ram Deo Tewari
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.B. Pandey, S.P. Singh, Shiv Shankar
Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Civil Services Regulations Art.-370-Pension
benefits-work charged employee-after 3
years 10 months and 7 days regularizationretired -whether period of working in work
charge establishment countable for pension
purpose ?-held-'no'-reasons disclosed.
Held: Para-11
As indicated above, the service of the
petitioner in the regular establishment is
only for a period of 3 years,10 months
and 21 days, he is not entitled to get the
pensionary benefits as claimed by hi.
Further, for the reasons indicated above,
t he services performed by the petitioner
in the work charged establishment are
not liable to be counted as qualifying
services for the purposes of payment of
post-retiral /terminal benefits.
Case Law discussed:
2014 (2) AWC 1771; 2010 (8) ADJ 664; (2009)
3 SCC 661; (1979) 4 SCC 440; (1997) 2 SCC
517
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Devendra
Kumar Arora, J.)
1. Heard Sri Uma Shanker Tiwari,
Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri
Shiv Shanker Singh, learned Counsel for
the petitioner and Sri Badrul Hasan,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel.
3 All. Ram Deo Tewari Vs.State of U.P.
1437
2. Through instant writ petition, the
petitioner has
soughtfor a writ of
mandamus commanding the opposite
parties to give post retrial benefits i.e.
pension and gratuity to the petitioner
w.e.f. 1.2.1998 and onwards.
3.
According to the petitioner's
Counsel,the petitioner was initially appointed
as Mechanic in work charge establishment in
Gandak Project Chap Branch Division,
Deoria in 3rd Circle Gorampur, Irrigation
Department in the basic salary of Rs. 825/-
per month. Thereafter, in the year 1977 he
was transferred to 11th Circle, Irrigation
Works, Faizabad and thereafter he was
posted in Sharda Canal Division, 43
Faizabad.
4.
It has been pointed out that the
services of the petitioner was regularized by
means of the order dated 3.3.1994 on the
post of Mate in the pay scale of Rs. 725-1025
and the petitioner was posted at Sharda
Shayak Khand-43 and ultimately retired on
31.1.1998 on attaining the age of 60 years
but in an arbitrary manner he has been
denied the pension and other retiral dues,
which is unjust and unwarranted.
5. In contrast, the learned Standing
Counsel on the basis of averments made
in
the
counter
affidavit
and
the
Supplementary Counter Affidavit stated
that the petitioner was appointed in the
Work
Charged
Establishment
w.e.f.
1.1.1975 and thereafter on availability of
the
vacant
post
in
the
regular
establishment, he was given appointment
in the regular establishment on 4.3.1994
and petitioner after working for about 3
years 10 months and 27 days attained the
age of superannuation on 31.1.1998. As
his services are less than 10 years,
therefore, petitioner is not entitled for
pensionary benefits. It is also stated that
the Work Charged Employees are paid
salaries from the fund available in the
sanctioned projects under which they are
employed and after completion of the
work in the concerned project, their
services come to an end.
6.
To strengthen the aforesaid
contention, the learned Standing Counsel has
relied upon a recent judgment of Division
Bench headed by the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice in Special Appeal Defective No. 23
of 2014:Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and
others; 2014(2) AWC 1771, wherein it has
been held that the work charged employees
constitute a distinct class and they cannot be
equated with regular employees and in the
absence of any specific provision to that
effect in Article 370 (ii) of the Civil Services
Regulations. They are not entitled for
pensionary benefits.
7. I have considered the submission of
the learned Counsel for the parties and gone
through the record. There is no dispute to
the fact that the petitioner was engaged as
work charged employee and on account of
availability of the clear vacancy he was
given regular appointment vide order dated
3.3.1994. After rendering about 3 years 10
months and 27 days service, he attained the
age of superannuation on 31.1.1998. As per
the provisions of Article 370 of the Civil
Services Regulations continuous/temporary
or officiating service under the Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh
followed
without
interpretations by confirmation in the same
or any other post shall qualify for pension
except i)periods of temporary or officiating
service in non-pensionable establishment ii)
period
of
service
in
work
charged
establishment and iii) period of service in a
post and from contingencies. Article 370
reads as under:-
1438
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"Article 370 of the Civil Service
Regulations, as applicable in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, provides that continuous,
temporary or officiating service under the
Government of Uttar Pradesh followed
without interpretations by confirmation in
the same or any other post shall qualify
for pension except;
(i)periods of temporary or officiating
service in non-pensionable establishment;
(ii)periods
of
service
in
work
charged establishment; and
(iii)periods of service in a post paid
from contingencies."
8. A plain reading of the provisions
of Article 370 of the Civil Services
Regulations makes it clear that the period
of service in work charged establishment
cannot be counted for the purpose of
determining the qualifying service for
grant of pension. A Full Bench of this
Court in Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs. State
of U.P. and others; 2010(8) ADJ 664 after
pointing out the difference between a
person
appointed
in
a
regular
establishment and in a work charged
establishment, held that a work charged
employee engaged in connection with the
affairs of the State, who is not holding
any
post,
whether
substantive
or
temporary, and is not appointed in any
regular vacancy, even if he was working
for more than 3 years, is not a
'Government servant' within the meaning
of Rule 2(a) of U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents
of
Government
Servant
(Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974, and thus
his dependents on his death in harness are
not entitled to compassionate appointment
under the Rules. The reasons given by the
Full Bench reads as under:
"20. In respect of the employees the
State
Government
in
Irrigation
Department, Public Works Department,
Minor
Irrigation,
Rural
Engineering
Services, Grounds Water Department has
provided for employment in the regular
establishment
and
workcharge
establishment. The person appointed in
regular
establishment
are
appointed
against a post, after following due
procedure prescribed under the rules. In
workcharge establishment the employees
are not appointed by following any
procedure
or
looking
into
their
qualification. They do not work against
any post or regular vacancy. They only
get consolidated salary under the limits of
sanction provided by Government Order
dated 6th April, 1929. The conditions of
their
employment
is
provided
in
paragraphs 667, 668 and 669 of Chapter
XXI under the Head of Establishment in
Financial Hand Book Volume IV. Their
payments are provided to be made in
same Financial Hand Book Volume IV in
Paragraph Nos.458, 459, 460, 461, 462
and 463.
21. Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Chief Standing Counsel submits that by
Government
Order
dated
1.1.2000
Paragraphs 667, 668 and 669 of Financial
Hand Book Volume 4 have been deleted
and that thereafter the payments are not
being made to them from the budget
allotted from the regular establishment,
and they are not entitled to any allowance
or pensionary benefits. They are paid
from contingencies and are required to
work until the work is available. The
services of workcharge employees are
regularised only when regular vacancy is
available. Until then they cannot be
treated as government servants".
9. In the case of Punjab State
Electricity Board and others Vs. Jagjiwan
Ram and others; (2009) 3 SCC 661,
3 All. Ram Deo Tewari Vs.State of U.P.
1439
examined the issue whether work charged
employees in the service of Punjab State
Electricity Board, who were subsequently
appointed on a regular basis, could claim that
the service rendered by them as work
charged employees should be counted for the
purpose of grant of time bound promotional
scale/promotional increments and after
taking note of the earlier decisions in Jaswant
Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors;
(1979) 4 SCC 440 and State of Rajasthan Vs.
Kunji Raman; (1997) 2 SCC 517, the Apex
Court observed that the work charged
employees constitute a distinct class and they
cannot be equated with any other category or
class of employees, much less regular
employees and they are not entitled to
service benefits which are admissible to
regular employees under the relevant rules or
policy framed by the employer. The relevant
paragraphs of the report reads as under:-
"9. We have considered the respective
submissions. Generally speaking, a work
charged establishment is an establishment of
which the expenses are chargeable to works.
The pay and allowances of the employees
who are engaged on a work charged
establishment are usually shown under a
specified sub-head of the estimated cost of
works. The work charged employees are
engaged for execution of a specified work or
project and their engagement comes to an end
on completion of the work or project. The
source and mode of engagement/recruitment
of work charged employees, their pay and
conditions of employment are altogether
different from the persons appointed in the
regular establishment against sanctioned posts
after following the procedure prescribed under
the relevant Act or rules and their duties and
responsibilities are also substantially different
than those of regular employees.
10.The work charged employees can
claim protection under the Industrial
Disputes Act or the rights flowing from
any particular statute but they cannot be
treated at par with the employees of
regular establishment. They can neither
claim regularization of service as of right
nor they can claim pay scales and other
financial benefits at par with regular
employees. If the service of a work
charged employee is regularized under
any statute or a scheme framed by the
employer, then he becomes member of
regular establishment from the date of
regularization. His service in the work
charged establishment cannot be clubbed
with service in a regular establishment
unless a specific provision to that effect is
made either in the relevant statute or the
scheme of regularization. In other words,
if the statute or scheme under which
service of work charged employee is
regularized does not provide for counting
of past service, the work charged
employee cannot claim benefit of such
service for the purpose of fixation of
seniority in the regular cadre, promotion
to the higher posts, fixation of pay in the
higher scales, grant of increments etc."
10. Recently, a Division Bench of this
Court in Jai Prakash's case [supra] after
taking
into
consideration
various
pronouncement s of the Apex Court referred
to herein above including the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in Punjab State
Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Narata Singh
and Anr. reported in (2010) 4 SCC 317 held
in last but one paragraph as under:-
"These decisions of the Supreme
Court and the Full Bench of this Court
leave no manner of doubt that in view of
the material difference between an
employee working in a work charged
establishment and an employee working
in a regular establishment, the service
1440
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rendered in a work charged establishment
cannot be clubbed with service in a
regular establishment unless there is a
specific provision to that effect in the
relevant Statutes. Article 370(ii) of the
Civil Service Regulations specifically, on
the contrary, excludes the period of service
rendered in a work charged establishment
for the purposes of payment of pension and
we have in the earlier part of this judgment
held that the decision of the Supreme
Court in Narata Singh (supra), which
relates to Rule 3.17(i) of the Punjab
Electricity Rules, does not advance the
case of the appellant. In this view of the
matter, the appellant is not justified in
contending that the period of service
rendered from 1 October 1982 to 5 January
1996 as a work charged employee should
be added for the purpose of computing the
qualifying service for payment of pension."
11. As indicated above, the service
of
the
petitioner
in
the
regular
establishment is only for a period of 3
years,10 months and 21 days, he is not
entitled to get the pensionary benefits as
claimed by hi. Further, for the reasons
indicated above, t he services performed
by the petitioner in the work charged
establishment are not liable to be counted
as qualifying services for the purposes of
payment of post-retiral /terminal benefits.
12. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, the relief as claimed by the
petitioner cannot be granted and the writ
petition lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
14. Costs easy.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 647 of 2015
M/s Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. Allahabad &
Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singh, Sri Krishna
Mohan
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Sri S. Upadhyay
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Writ
Petition-petitioner to disclose all matterial
true facts-if matterial facts discovered by
Courts
to
subsequently-Judge
should
impose exemplary cost also-Learned Single
Judge rightly impose cost of Rs. One LacsAppellate Court declined to interfere.
Held: Para-23
Learned Single Judge has relied upon
various pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Apex Court laying down that if a litigant is
found guilty of concealment of material
facts or making an attempt to pollute the
pure stream of justice, the Court not only
has the right but a duty to deny relief to
such a person. A litigant, who seeks shelter
of
falsehood,
misrepresentation
and
suppression
of
facts
in
invoking
the
extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this
Court conferred by Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is not liable for any
indulgence.
Case Law discussed:
(2012) 6 SCC 430; (2010) 2 SCC 114; [(2012)
12 SCC 133]
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)