Summary
Employees sought counting of long work-charged service towards pension after regularisation. The Court found irrational the Uttar Pradesh rule counting such service only when sandwiched between specified pensionable service periods. It read down Rule 3(8) to include the relevant pre-regularisation service and struck down contrary exclusions. Certain long-serving retired employees who had not been regularised received case-specific regular-service treatment for pension, without wage differences.
Issues
- Whether exclusion of work-charged service before regularisation created impermissible discrimination.
- What pension relief followed for regularised and specified long-serving unregularised employees.
Provisions considered
- Rule 3(8) and appended Note, U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961Read down to count relevant pre-regularisation work-charged, contingency-paid and non-pensionable-establishment service without the restrictive intervening-service condition. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11, 31, 32, 33, 36)
- Regulation 370, Uttar Pradesh Civil Services RegulationsThe exclusion was struck down in view of the discriminatory treatment and reading down of the pension rule. (¶¶ 9, 12, 34)
- Paragraph 669, Financial Handbook, Volume VIThe contrary exclusionary instructions were struck down. (¶¶ 13, 14, 34)
Held
- The employees had performed regular and perennial work over decades, with monthly pay, pay scales, efficiency-bar progression and transfers. A merely asserted qualitative difference did not justify the exclusion on these facts. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30)
- The rule already counted work-charged service when placed between specified temporary or permanent service periods. Refusing identical service before regularisation solely because it lacked that arrangement was irrational discrimination. (¶¶ 31, 32)
- Rule 3(8) was read down to count the specified service before regularisation even without a preceding temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment; Regulation 370 and paragraph 669 were struck down accordingly. (¶¶ 33, 34)
- For the long-serving retired employees covered by paragraph 35 who had not been regularised, the Court directed regular-service treatment for pension and counting from entry into the work-charged establishment. Differences in pre-retirement wages were expressly denied. This was relief on the stated facts, not a general promotion or ACP ruling. (¶¶ 27, 35)
Result
Employees’ appeals were allowed and State appeals dismissed. Work-charged service was to count as qualifying service for pension; admissible benefits were directed within three months. Pension arrears were confined to three years before the order. Pending applications were disposed of.