The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to determine qualifying service period by adding the service period of six employees of Irrigation Department of Badaun, as work charge and take a decision after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Pratap.
A single-judge bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Rakesh Kumar And 5 Others.
The petition has been filed challenging the order dated February 3, 2021, whereby the claim of the petitioners for counting the services rendered by the petitioners as a work charge employee have been excluded while computing the qualifying service rendered by the petitioners.
The Court observed, “The reason accorded for not taking into account the services rendered by the petitioners as work charge employee is the Ordinance issued by the State Government being The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020.
The said order is clearly not sustainable in the light of the judgment of the Court in the case of State of UP and others Vs. Mahendra Singh, decided on february 4, 2021, wherein the Court had the occasion to consider Section 2 of the said Ordinance and the Court after considering the scope of the said Section 2 has held that the services rendered by the appointee as a work charge employee shall be considered while calculating the qualifying services in terms of Section 2 of the said Ordinance.
“In the light of the said two judgments, the impugned order is unsustainable and is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the grant of benefits to the petitioners in the light of the judgments in the cases of State of UP and Others Vs. Mahendra Singh and State of U.P. and others Vs. Bhanu Pratap Sharma, by including the services rendered as a work charge employee in the qualifying service. The consequent benefits shall be paid to the petitioners accordingly.
“The said exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of,” the Court ordered.