Himmat Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

S.K. Mishra, J

Heard Mr. Anil Anthwal, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

In this appeal, the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.97 of 2018, on 23.12.2021, dismissing his prayer.

The appellant, in the writ petition, has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the services rendered by the petitioner in work charge establishment for the particular purposes including giving retirement benefits to him.

The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, rejected the petition mainly on two grounds. We find it apt to quote the exact words used by the learned Single Judge.

“1. That for the purposes of settlement of his gratuity, he has already approached before the competent authority created under the Payment of Gratuity Act, by filing the proceedings by way of PGA Case No.10 of 2016, which has been decided. This fact was concealed by the petitioner.

But what is more important and will have a direct bearing on the adjudication of the writ petition is with regards to the pleadings raised by the respondents in para 3 & 4 of the counter affidavit, where the aspect pertaining to ‘the petitioner himself has voluntarily opted for Contributory Pension Scheme and having received the payment at the time of superannuation/retirement at the time of the payment of the earned leave based on the option extended by the petitioner’, was not a fact, which was pleaded by him in the writ petition, which I am of the view that it should have been pleaded and disclosed”.

Firstly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the fact that the petitioner has approached before the competent authority created under the Payment of Gratuity Act, for certain reliefs is not relevant for this particular writ petition. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant further contended that whether the petitioner has opted for Contributory Pension Scheme or any other scheme, is also not relevant for the purpose of granting him the relief for counting the period he had discharged duties in the work charge establishment.

It is also well-settled law, at present, that the period which the employee rendered in service of the employer in the work charge establishment shall be computed for qualifying service. In this connection, we take note of the reported case of “Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others”, (2019) 10 SCC 516, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the employees are also entitled to their service period discharged as work charge employees to be included in the qualifying service.

In that view of the matter, we find enough ground to allow the appeal. Hence the appeal is allowed on contest.

It is, hereby, directed that the respondents, while preparing the retiral benefits of the appellant, shall count the period he has discharged duties in the work charge establishment. It is also noted that, in the meantime, the appellant has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, the respondents are directed to complete the process within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.