# Works Department, Lucknow and others v. Prem Chandra and others). In a bunch of

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 989
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-07-17
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 1828 of 2008
- **Bench:** Shabihul Hasnain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/works-department-lucknow-and-others-v-prem-chandra-and-others-in-a-bunch-of-42667
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.

U.P.
Civil
Services
RegulationsRegulation 370- Right to get pensionpetitioner after completing 30 years
service
including
work
charge
and
regular service-retired on 31.08.2007pensionary benefits denied as has not
completed 10 years service in Regular
establishment-shorttend by 1 year 2
month
26
days-held-as
per
law
developed by Apex Court reported in
2010 AIR SCW Page 1670-Punjab State
Electricity Board case service rendered in
work charge established to be countedaccordingly direction issued to ensure
payment of pension within 3 month.

Held: Para-6
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
relied upon a judgment given in special
appeal defective No.2624 of 2013 (State of
U.P. through Principal Secretary, Public
Works Department, Lucknow and others Vs.
Prem Chandra and others). In a bunch of
special
appeals
their
Lordships
have
dismissed the appeal of the State and
upheld the validity of the orders of learned
Single Judge wherein the benefit of work
charged services have been given to the
petitioner. In this case, their Lordships have
relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1670
(Punjab State Electricity Board and another
Vs. Narata Singh and another). Their
Lordships have observed that provisions of
regulation 370 of the U.P. Civil Services
Regulation have to be read in line with
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
absence of challenge to the validity of the
regulation in this petition or in any other
petition earlier.

Case Law discussed:
2009(27) 1163; 2010 AIR SCW 1670.

## Text

2 All] Panchu Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
989

30. For the facts and circumstances
mentioned above, I am of the opinion
that the charges against the revisionists
are groundless and the findings of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura that
this question can be decided only after
recording the evidence under Section
137, 154 and 146 of Indian Evidence
Act are perverse. It is a dispute of
purely civil nature which has been
given the criminal colour just to
pressurise the revisionists.

31. In the result, the revision is
allowed. The impugned order dated
16.1.2010 is set-aside. The revisionists
are discharged for the offences of
Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C.
relating to Case Crime No.232 of 2008,
P.S. Brindavan, District Mathura.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 17.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J.

Service Single No. 1828 of 2008

Panchu

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.K. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.
Civil
Services
RegulationsRegulation 370- Right to get pensionpetitioner after completing 30 years
service
including
work
charge
and
regular service-retired on 31.08.2007pensionary benefits denied as has not
completed 10 years service in Regular
establishment-shorttend by 1 year 2
month
26
days-held-as
per
law
developed by Apex Court reported in
2010 AIR SCW Page 1670-Punjab State
Electricity Board case service rendered in
work charge established to be countedaccordingly direction issued to ensure
payment of pension within 3 month.

Held: Para-6
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
relied upon a judgment given in special
appeal defective No.2624 of 2013 (State of
U.P. through Principal Secretary, Public
Works Department, Lucknow and others Vs.
Prem Chandra and others). In a bunch of
special
appeals
their
Lordships
have
dismissed the appeal of the State and
upheld the validity of the orders of learned
Single Judge wherein the benefit of work
charged services have been given to the
petitioner. In this case, their Lordships have
relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1670
(Punjab State Electricity Board and another
Vs. Narata Singh and another). Their
Lordships have observed that provisions of
regulation 370 of the U.P. Civil Services
Regulation have to be read in line with
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
absence of challenge to the validity of the
regulation in this petition or in any other
petition earlier.

Case Law discussed:
2009(27) 1163; 2010 AIR SCW 1670.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.)

1. Heard Sri D. K. Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Standing counsel.

2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ
of mandamus directing the opposite parties
to provide the pension to the petitioner with
effect from the date of his retirement i.e.
31.8.2007 with all consequential benefits
counting entire service of the petitioner and
the same be clubbed for computation of
qualifying services.
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

3. The petitioner was initially
appointed on the post of Beldar in the
year 1978 as a muster roll employee and
thereafter he was declared in the work
charged establishment after completion of
8 years of satisfactory services on the said
post on 1.4.1986 in the pay scale.
Thereafter, the services of the petitioner
were regularized on 27.11.1998. In all, the
petitioner has worked in the department
for almost thirty years. These facts are not
disputed by the opposite parties. The
petitioner retired on 31.8.2007 and since
his
services
were
regularized
on
27.11.1998, he did not have ten years of
regular services to his credit at the time of
his retirement. Since there was deficiency
of about one year, two months and 26
days, the opposite parties refused to grant
pension to the petitioner on the ground
that work charged/daily wage services can
not be computed for the purposes of
allowing
pensionary
benefits.
This
question has perturbed the Court every
time the case is filed before the Court.
There are a number of judgments and a lot
of confusion has always been there in the
minds of the executive whether or not to
grant pension by computing the work
charge periods of the employee.

4. Sri D. K. Tripathi has forcefully
argued that thirty years is a pretty long
time for a man which he has spent in the
services of the department. After putting
best years of his life if an employee is not
given the pensionary benefits, the charm
of working in a department will be lost on
the incumbents. If a person spends his
youth in the services of the department it
is expected in a welfare State that he may
be looked after when his bones are old.
Keeping this philosophy in mind the
pensionary schemes have been introduced
in the government department.

5. It has been observed that
regularization of services mostly depends
on the sweet will of the officers. If a
person has worked for thirty years it is
hard to imagine that a post will not be
there for regularization even after twenty
years. If the officers are little careful,
considerate,
open
minded
little
benevolent, they will see to it that an
employee gets regularized at a time when
he gets at least ten years of qualifying
services. Often posts kept lying vacant,
meetings are not held, advertisements are
not issued, notices are not given and a
careless attitude is adopted towards
regularization, resulting in precious time
being lost, which could have been
computed in favour of the employee
towards
calculations
for
pensionary
benefits. The said view was earlier taken
by this Court in writ petition No.2637
(S/S) of 2009 (Mohd. Mustafa Vs. State
of U.P. and others) reported in 2009 (27)
LCD 1163. A Division Bench of this
Court has upheld the said judgment in
special appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also relied upon a judgment given in
special appeal defective No.2624 of 2013
(State of U.P. through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department, Lucknow and
others Vs. Prem Chandra and others). In a
bunch of special appeals their Lordships
have dismissed the appeal of the State and
upheld the validity of the orders of learned
Single Judge wherein the benefit of work
charged services have been given to the
petitioner. In this case, their Lordships have
relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1670
(Punjab State Electricity Board and another
Vs. Narata Singh and another). Their
Lordships have observed that provisions of
regulation 370 of the U.P. Civil Services
2 All] Smt. Jyoti Belur Vs. C.B.I.
991
Regulation have to be read in line with
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
absence of challenge to the validity of the
regulation in this petition or in any other
petition earlier.

7. In view of what has been said above,
the writ petition is allowed. The opposite
parties are directed to count the services
rendered by the petitioner in work charged
establishment to the extent it is required for
qualifying services of ten years. The opposite
parties will give pensionary benefits to the
petitioner treating him to be a regular
employee for ten years.

8. The petitioner has retired in
2007. Five years have passed. He has
become a senior citizen of this country.
The opposite parties will be well
advised and directed to complete the
necessary formalities for payment of
pensionary benefits, say within a
maximum period of three months from
the date a certified copy of this order is
placed before them. The services of the
work charged period shall only be
counted for computing the qualifying
services of ten years.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL- SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ADITYA NATH MITTAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2708 of 2010.
Smt. Jyoti Belur

 ...Petitioner
Versus
C.B.I.

.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.B. Suri, Sri A.K. Awasthi, Sri Manish
Tiwari
Sri R.K. Awasthi, Sri Vimal Chandra Tiwari
Sri Anoop Trivedi
Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A., Sri G.S. Hajela, Sri Nazrul Islam
Jafri.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-362-
Power to recall the judgment/order
passed on merit-inherent power under
section 482 can not be exercised-against
the
statutory
provision-after
signing
judgment-except clerical error-no power
to recall-application rejected.

Held: Para-18
Hon'ble the Apex Court has further held
that even the inherent powers conferred
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution. The legal position is clear that an
inherent powers cannot be invoked for
exercise of a power which is specifically
prohibited by the Code. The matter has
been considered by Hon'ble the Calcutta
High Court in Harjeet Singh Vs. State of
West Bengal (F.B.) (supra) and I agree with
the view of Hon'ble the Calcutta High Court.
With humble regards, I do not agree with
the decisions in Criminal Revision No.163 of
2001 and Criminal Revision No.3629 of
2004 passed by Single Judges of this Court
because the provisions of Section 362
Cr.P.C.
are
not
helping
the
present
revisionist and the law declared by Hon'ble
the Apex Court in Hari Singh Mann (supra)
and Harjeet Singh Vs. State of West Bengal
(supra) makes it clear that a judgment of
the High Court on appeal or revision cannot
be
reviewed
or
revised
except
in
accordance with the provisions of the
Cr.P.C. In the Code of Criminal Procedure,
there is no provisions to recall an order
passed on the merits.

Case Law discussed:
Crl. Revision No. 163 of 2001; 2001 SCCrR
129; 2005 Cr.L.J. 3286; AIR 1979(SC)87

(Delivered by Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.)

1. This application has been filed to
recall the order dated 9.4.2013 passed by
this Court on merits in Criminal Revision