UDAY PRATAP THAKUR AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
UDAY PRATAP THAKUR AND ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3155 of 2023)
APRIL 28, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Service Law : Work Charged Establishment Revised Service
Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013 : r. 5(v) – Pensionary benefits
– Computation of, of work charged employees, whose services were
subsequently regularized – Counting of the period of work charged
services – Entire service rendered as work charged under the work
charged establishment, if to be counted and/or considered for the
determination of the amount of pension – Held: Work charged
employees are not appointed on a substantive post – They are not
appointed after due process of selection and as per the recruitment
rules – Thus, the services rendered as work charged cannot be
counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension – However,
at the same time, after rendering of service as work charged for
number of years and thereafter when their services have been
regularized, they cannot be denied the pension on the ground that
they have not completed the qualifying service for pension – Thus,
the service rendered as work charged after their services have been
regularized under the regularization scheme, would be counted for
the purpose of qualifying service for pension only as per r. 5(v) of
the 2013 Rules.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Rule 5(v) of the Work Charged Establishment
Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013 as such can
be said to be beneficial to such work charged employees, whose
services have been regularized subsequently. As per Rule 5(v),
even if the minimum requirement of 10 years of service (qualifying
service) for pension is not met, in that case also, the service
rendered as a work charged to be added for qualifying service
for pension. Therefore, the efforts have been made by the State
Government to see that after rendering services for number of
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 530
530
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
years as work charged, and thereafter, their services have been
regularized, they may not be denied the pension on the ground
that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension.
It also further provides that the benefits like pension & gratuity
shall be counted by giving one year advantage against the five
years services as work–charged employee. Therefore, Rule 5(v)
is beneficial also in favour of such work charged employees, whose
services have been regularized subsequently, and they may not
be deprived of the pension on the ground that they have not
completed the qualifying service for pension. The denying of
pension after rendering service as work charged for number of
years on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying
service can be said to be unfair and illegal and can be said to be
exploitation. Therefore, to make such work charged employees
eligible for pension, Rule 5(v) provides that if any work charged
employee, whose services have been regularized under the Rules,
2013, is short of qualifying service, to the extent of such shortage
of qualifying service, the services rendered as work charged to
be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension.
Under the circumstances, the Larger Bench of the High Court
rightly held that for the purpose of pension, only such period
from the work charged tenure would be added for making the
service of an employee, who has been regularized to qualify him
for pension. [Para 6.1][537-E-H; 538-A-B]
1.2. The submission that their entire services rendered as
work charged should be considered and/or counted for the
purpose of pension/quantum of pension is concerned, the same
cannot be accepted. If the same is accepted, in that case, it would
tantamount to regularizing their services from the initial
appointment as work charged. There is always a difference and
distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive
post and a work charged employee working under work charged
establishment. The work charged employees are not appointed
on a substantive post. They are not appointed after due process
of selection and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the
services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the
purpose of pension/quantum of pension. However, at the same
time, after rendering of service as work charged for number of
UDAY PRATAP THAKUR AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
ye

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.