PREM SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

PREM SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

The Court read down the Note to Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 to hold that periods of service rendered in work-charged establishments, contingency-paid posts or non-pensionable establishments shall be counted as qualifying service for pension even if such service was rendered prior to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Prem Singh; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals filed by the employees allowed; appeals filed by the State dismissed; Rule 3(8) read down to include work-charged, contingency-paid and non-pensionable service rendered prior to regularization as qualifying service; Regulation 370 and Para 669 struck down insofar as they excluded such service; employees who...
Legal Topics
Qualifying Service, Work Charged Establishment, Regularization, Pension Computation, Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, Civil Services Regulations, Discrimination Under Article 14
Service Law Pension Administrative Law Constitutional Law Qualifying Service Work Charged Establishment Regularization Pension Computation +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prem Singh

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether period of service rendered in work-charged establishment can be included in qualifying service for grant of pension
  2. 2 Validity and intra vires of Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, Regulation 370 of U.P. Civil Services Regulations and Para 669 of Financial Handbook Vol. VI
  3. 3 Whether the Note to Rule 3(8) making counting conditional on interregnum service is discriminatory and irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The Court read down the Note to Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 to hold that periods of service rendered in work-charged establishments, contingency-paid posts or non-pensionable establishments shall be counted as qualifying service for pension even if such service was rendered prior to regularization and not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment; consequently Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations and instructions in Para 669 of the Financial Handbook insofar as they exclude such counting were struck down; employees who had rendered long service and were superannuated without regularisation (ten years or more) are to...

Court Disposition

Appeals filed by the employees allowed; appeals filed by the State dismissed; Rule 3(8) read down to include work-charged, contingency-paid and non-pensionable service rendered prior to regularization as qualifying service; Regulation 370 and Para 669 struck down insofar as they excluded such service; employees who...

Orders

  • Appeals filed by the employees are allowed and appeals filed by the State are dismissed.
  • Read down Note to Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 to provide that services rendered in work-charged establishment, contingency-paid fund posts or non-pensionable establishment shall be counted towards qualifying service even if not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in pensionable...