1  

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6798 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.4371 OF 2011)  

PREM SINGH                     ..APPELLANT  

VERSUS  

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH  

& ORS.                             ..RESPONDENT(S)  

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6804 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5775 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6799-6803 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.613-617 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6938-6942 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 21252-21256 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).11803 OF 2018)  

MA NO.1541 OF 2018 IN S.L.P. (C) NO.19310 OF 2017  

MA NO.1542 OF 2018 IN S.L.P. (C) NO.19234 OF 2017  

MA NO.1544 OF 2018 IN S.L.P. (C) NO.19346 OF 2017)  

MA NO.1545 OF 2018 IN S.L.P. (C) NO.19350 OF 2017)  

MA NO.1546 OF 2018 IN S.L.P. (C) NO.19740 OF 2017  

MA NO.1543 OF 2018 IN S.L.P. (C) NO.19297 OF 2017  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6805 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.18754 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6806 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.25706 OF 2018)    

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6937 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21250 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).32599 OF 2018)

2  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6943 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21262 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).35336 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6810  OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.30460 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6944 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21265 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).36218 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6945 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21266 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).36406 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6808 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.29893 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6809 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.30196 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6946 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21267 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).38274 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6825 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.508 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6947 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21268 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).38286 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6948 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21269 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).38388 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6949 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21270 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).38391 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6811 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.30461 OF 2018)  

3  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6812 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.30462 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6807 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.29567 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6950 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21271 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).39346 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6813 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.30979 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6951 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21272 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).40382 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6952 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21273 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).40385 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6953 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21274 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).40389 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6954 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21275 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).40392 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6955 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21276 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).40396 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6956 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21279 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).40487 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6957 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21280 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).40493 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6826 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 512 OF 2019)  

4  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6958 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21281 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).41600 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6959 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21282 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).41601 OF 2018  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6960 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21283 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).41602 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6961 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21284 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).41607 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6962 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21285 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).41610 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6963 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21286 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).41798 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6964 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21287 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).41805 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6965 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21288 OF 2019  

(DIARY NO(S).41808 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6827 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.513 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6819 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.383 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6828 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.514 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6816 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.32624 OF 2018)  

5  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6817 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.32627 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6815 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.32534 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6824 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.504 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6818 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.32628 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6814 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.32494 OF 2018)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6834 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1722 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6823 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.503 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6822 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.502 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6821 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.501 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6820 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.446 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6833 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1721 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6838 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1726 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6832 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1720 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6829 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.795 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6831 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1716 OF 2019)

6  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6830 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.796 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6844 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2311 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6835 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1723 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6839 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1727 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6840 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1728 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6837 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1725 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6836 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1724 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6843 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2310 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6853 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3085 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6846 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2852 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6841 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2308 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6842 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2309 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6845 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2312 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6856 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3088 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6855 OF 2019

7  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3087 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6858 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3867 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6852 OF 2019  

(@  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3084 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6847 OF 2019  

(@  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2853 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6850 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2856 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6857 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3866 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6859 OF 2019  

(@  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3868 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6848 OF 2019  

(@  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2854 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6849 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2855 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6860 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3869 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6851 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2857 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6864 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5157 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6861 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3870 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6862 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3871 OF 2019    

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6854 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3086 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6863 OF 2019

8  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3872 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6866 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5159 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6869 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5355 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6877 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.7233 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6870 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5356 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6868 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5354 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6876 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.7232 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6874 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.6647 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6879 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.7235 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6865 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5158 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6875 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.7227 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6871 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5357 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6878 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.7234 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6867 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5160 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6873 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.6646 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6872 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.6645 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6882 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.7742 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6881 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.7741 OF 2019)

9  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6884 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.8301 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6880 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.7739 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6883 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.8300 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6900 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.11909 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6885 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.8302 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6887 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.9288 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6886 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.9269 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6888 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.9289 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6889 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.9290 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6890 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.9291 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6891 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.9292 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6895 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.10095 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6892 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.9293 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6896 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.10096 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6897 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.10097 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6893 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.9294 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6898 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.11824 OF 2019)

10  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6894 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.10094 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6901 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.11910 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6899 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.11825 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6904 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.12358 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6903 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.12357 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6905 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14496 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6902 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.12356 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6927-6929 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.15421-15423 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6906 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14497 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6907 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14498 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6908 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14499 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6909 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14500 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6910 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14502 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6911 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14505 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6912 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14506 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6930 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.15424 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6913 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14507 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6914 OF 2019

11  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14509 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6915 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14510 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6916 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14511 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6917 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14512 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6918 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14513 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6919 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14514 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6921 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14640 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6923 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14705 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6925 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.15418 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6920 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14516 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6924 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.15052 OF 2019  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6922 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.14704 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6931 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.15425 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6932 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.15426 OF 2019)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6926 OF 2019  

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.15419 OF 2019)  

J U D G M E N T  

ARUN MISHRA, J.  

1. The question involved in the present matters is whether Rule 3(8)

12  

of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 (in short “Rules of 1961“)   

and Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulation of Uttar Pradesh  

should be struck down having regard to the fact that this Court has  

upheld the decision regarding pari materia provision enacted in the  

State of Punjab which excluded computation of the period of work-

charged services from qualifying service for pension.  This Court has  

affirmed the decision of the High Court of State of Punjab and Haryana  

rendered in Kesar Singh v. the State of Punjab, AIR 1988 Punjab and  

Haryana 265.  

2. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the matter to be  

considered by a larger bench. Hence the matter is before us.  

 3. The facts are being narrated from Prem Singh v. State of Uttar  

Pradesh (C.A. No.________of 2019 @ SLP (Civil) No.4371 of 2011). The  

appelant was appointed as a Welder in the year 1965 in a work-

charged establishment (Ram Ganga River Valley Project, Kalagarh).  He  

was transferred from one place to another and thereafter ultimately  

the Selection Committee recommended for regularization of his  

services.  His services were regularized on 13.3.2002 and was posted  

as Pump Operator in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 in the regular  

establishment.  He superannuated on 31.1.2007.  Then he filed a writ  

petition in the High Court on 31.7.2008 to count period spent in the

13  

work-charged establishment as qualifying service under the Rules of  

1965.  The High Court directed to submit a representation, accordingly  

it was filed which met with rejection on 12.12.2008.  Yet another  

representation filed also met with the same fate vide order dated  

23.3.2009.  The writ petition and special appeal had been dismissed.  

  4. The appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court   

in Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand (Civil Appeal No.10805-10807  

of 2017) in which a Division Bench of this Court considering  

Regulation 370 of the Civil Service Regulations which has been  

approved in the State of Uttarakhand after its bifurcation from the  

State of Uttar Pradesh, held that Regulation 370 is pari materia  

provision to the one as contained in Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil  

Services Rules which had been struck down by a Full Bench decision  

of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab  

and Ors. (supra).  The challenge to the same was rejected by this  

Court.  The Court has further relied on Punjab State Electricity Board &  

Anr. v. Narata Singh and Anr., (2010) 4 SCC 317 in which it has been  

observed that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was perfectly  

justified in striking down Rule 3.17(ii) of Punjab Civil Services Rules  

resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in said rule between  

temporary and officiating service and work-charged service. This Court  

held that period of work-charged service should be counted for

14  

computation of qualifying service for grant of pension.  

5. This Court in other cases has followed the aforesaid decision in  

Habib Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (supra) giving relief to the  

employees. In Ram Deo Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil  

Appeal No.2896 of 2018) decided on 16.3.2018, the decision of Habib  

Khan (supra) has been followed.  This Court has dismissed the Review  

application filed in the case of Habib Khan (supra).    

 6. It is submitted by Shri Raghuvendra Singh, learned Advocate  

General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh that there is a  

difference in the Rules and Regulations in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab.  

The rule of Punjab was struck down by the High Court in Kesar Chand  

vs. State of Punjab (supra).  In Punjab, there was deemed  

regularization whereas in State of Uttar Pradesh services have been  

regularized on a particular date; as such that date has to be taken as  

the commencement of the services for the qualifying period for a  

pension under Rule 3(8) of the Rules.  He has also pointed out the  

conceptual difference between regular and work-charged employees.   

Work-charged employees are not appointed by following the same  

procedure as that of regular employees.  Work pressure and  

accountability also differ. He has further submitted that work-charged  

services cannot be treated as regular service even for Assured Career

15  

Progression (ACP).  The Government has the power to frame different  

rules for different classes of employees as such Rule 3(8) of the Rules  

and Regulation 370 cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory.   

Though, work-charged employees can claim protection under the  

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but cannot be treated at par with  

employees of regular establishment.  Treating them similarly would be  

like giving similar treatment to unequal classes which would be  

against the Right to Equality provided under Article 14 of the  

Constitution of India. Work-charged employee forms a separate and  

distinct class.  They cannot be treated at par with regular, temporary  

or ad-hoc employees. The work is qualitatively different as such  

services in the work-charged establishment cannot be clubbed with  

the services of a regular establishment unless a specific provision to  

that effect is made.  Giving the benefit of pension to work-charged  

employees is against the basic concept of pension which is admissible  

to a regular employee. The pension cannot be claimed as of right.  

7. He further submitted that the decision in Kesar Chand (supra) is  

per incuriam. Hence relied on the Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma  

Devi & Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1.  It is further submitted that economy of  

the State would collapse in case pension is paid treating the work  

charged period as qualifying service. It is practically difficult and  

financial burden would be cast upon the State in case these petitions

16  

are allowed.  The pension can be paid only under the rules.  In Narata  

Singh (supra) validity of Punjab Regulations has not been examined.  

Since there is a reference made by the Division Bench doubting the  

correctness of Habib Khan (supra), the same deserves to be held per  

incuriam and cannot be said to be laying down a good law.  

8. We first consider the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh  

Retirement Benefits Rules 1961 (for short, "the 1961 Rules"). Rule 3(8)  

of Rules of 1961 which contains the provisions in respect of qualifying  

service is extracted hereunder:  

“Rule 3. In these rules, unless is anything repugnant in the  

subject or context-  

(1) ……..  (2) ……..  (8) “Qualifying service” means service which qualifies for  

pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the  

Civil Service Regulations.  

Provided that continuous temporary or officiating service  

under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without  

interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post  

except-  

(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in a non- pensionable establishment.  

(ii) periods of service in a work-charged establishment and  (iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies shall  

also count as qualifying service.  

Note:- If service rendered in a non-pensionable establishment  

work-charged establishment or in a post paid from contingencies  

falls between two periods of temporary service in a pensionable  

establishment or between a period of temporary service and  

permanent service in a pensionable establishment, it will not  

constitute an interruption of service.”   

(emphasis supplied)  

17  

9. Regulations 361, 368 and 370 of Uttar Pradesh Civil Services  

Regulations are also relevant.  They are extracted hereunder:  

“361. The service of an officer does not qualify for pension  

unless it conforms to the following three conditions: -  

 First – The service must be under Government.  

Second – The employment must be substantive and  

permanent.  

These three conditions are fully explained in the  

following Section.  

368. Service does not qualify unless the officer holds a  

substantive office on a permanent establishment.  

370. Continuous temporary or officiating service under the  

Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without  

interruption by confirmation in the same or any other  

post shall qualify, except –  

(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non-

pensionable establishment;  

(ii) periods of service in work charged establishment; and  

(iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies.”  

 10. The qualifying service is the one which is in accordance with the  

provisions of Regulation 368 i.e. holding a substantive post on a  

permanent establishment.  The proviso to Rule 3(8) clarify that  

continuous, temporary or officiating service followed without  

interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post is also  

included in the qualifying service except in the case of periods of  

temporary and officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment.   

The service in work-charged establishment and period of service in a  

post paid from contingencies shall also not count as qualifying service.  

11. The Note appended to Rule 3(8) contains a provision that if the

18  

service is rendered in a non-pensionable establishment, work-charged  

establishment or in a post paid from contingencies, falls between two  

periods of temporary service in a pensionable establishment or  

between a period of temporary service and permanent service in a  

pensionable establishment, it will not constitute an interruption of  

service.  Thus, note contains a clear provision to count the qualifying  

service rendered in work-charged, contingency paid and non-

pensionable establishment to be counted towards pensionable service,  

in the exigencies provided therein.  

   12. The provisions contained in Regulation 370 of the Civil Services  

Regulations excludes service in a non-pensionable establishment,  

work-charged establishment and in a post paid from contingencies  

from the purview of qualifying service. Under Regulation 361 of the  

Civil Services Regulations, the services must be under the Government  

and the employment must be substantive and permanent basis.  

 13. The provisions contained in the Financial Handbook Vol. VI  

relating to engagement of employees in the work charged  

establishment in Paras 667, 668 and 669, are extracted hereunder:  

"667. Work-charged establishment will include such  

establishment as is employed upon the actual execution, as  

distinct from the general supervision, of a specific work or sub-

works of a specific project or upon the subordinate supervision  

of departmental labour, stores, and machinery in connection with  

such work or sub-works.  When employees borne on the

19  

temporary establishment are employed on work of this nature  

their pay should, for the time being, be charged direct to the  

work.  

Notes – (1) Persons who actually do the work with their hands,  

such as, beldars, masons, carpenters, fitters, mechanics, drivers,  

etc., should be engaged only when works are carried out  

departmentally, and charged to works.  In cases in which it is  

considered necessary, as a safeguard against damage to the  

Government Tools and Plant, such as road-rollers, concrete-

mixture, pumping-sets, and other machinery, mechanics, drivers,  

etc., may be engaged by the Department or alternatively, if  

engaged by the contractor must be subject to approval by the  

department, whether the work is done departmentally or by  

contract.  

(2) Mistries and work agent should, in all circumstances,  

whether they are employed on works executed departmentally or  

on contract, be charged to “works”.  

(3) Subject to the general principles stated in Paras 665 to 667  

being observed, the classes of establishment not covered by these  

definitions may be classified as "work-charged, or temporary",  

as the case may be, and the rule which prescribes that work-

charged establishment must be employed upon a specific work  

waived, with the previous sanction of the Government and  

concurrence of the Accountant General.  In such cases, the  

Government shall also determine in consultation with the  

Accountant General, the proportions in which the cost of such  

establishment shall be allocated between the works concerned.  

668. In all the cases previous sanction of the competent authority  

as laid down in Vol. I of the Handbook or in the departmental  

manuals of orders is necessary, which should specify in respect  

of each appointment (1) the consolidated rate of pay, (2) the  

period of sanction, and (3) the full name (as given in the  

estimate) of the work and the nature of the duties on which the  

person engaged would be employed.  

669. Members of the work-charged establishment are not entitled  

to any pension or to leave salary or allowances except in the  

following cases:  

(a) Wound and other extraordinary pensions and gratuities are in  

certain cases admissible in accordance with the rules in Part VI  

of the Civil Service Regulations.  

(b) Travelling and daily allowance may be allowed by divisional  

officers for journeys performed within the State in the interest of  

work on which the persons are employed on the following  

conditions:  

(i) The journey should be sanctioned by the divisional officer

20  

or the sub-divisional officer/ assistant engineer specifically  

authorized for the purpose by the divisional officer;  

(ii) the concerned officer while sanctioning the journey should  

also certify that the journey is actually necessary and  

unavoidable in the interest of the work on which the person is  

employed:  

(iii) for the journeys so performed the work-charged  

employee may be allowed travelling and daily allowance at  

the same rates and on the same conditions as are applicable to  

a regular government servant of equivalent status.  

4. All facilities and concessions admissible to workmen of facto- ries registered under the Factories Act, 1948, are also admissible  

to the employees of the registered State Workshops and Facto-

ries.”  

14. Para 669 of the manual provides that except in the case as  

mentioned thereunder the members of work-charged establishment  

are not entitled to any pension or to leave salary or allowances.    

15. In Kesar Chand v. the State of Punjab, AIR 1988 Punjab and  

Haryana (supra) has been rendered by Full Bench of Punjab and  

Haryana High Court.  The Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Rules came up  

for consideration before the Full Bench which reads as under:  

Rule 3.17. “if an employee was holding substantively a  

permanent post on the date of his retirement, his temporary or  

officiating service under the State Government, followed without  

interruption by confirmation in the same or another post, shall  

count in Full as qualifying service except in respect of –   

(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non-pensionable  establishment;  

(ii) periods of service in work-charged establishment; and   (iii) ……”  

16. A Full Bench of the High Court in Kesar Chand (supra) has

21  

discussed the matter thus:  

“19. In the light of the above, let us examine the validity of rule  

3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. This rule says  

that the period of service in a work-charged establishment shall  

not be taken into account in calculating the qualifying service.  

After the services of a work-charged employee have been  

regularised he becomes a public servant. The service is under the  

Government and is paid by it. This is what was precisely stated  

in the Industrial Award dated June 1, 1972, between the  

workmen and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (B. & R),  

Establishment Branch, Punjab, Patiala, which was published in  

the Government Gazette dated July 14, 1972. Even otherwise.  

the matter was settled by the Punjab Government Memo  

No.14095-BRI (3)-72/5383 dated 6th February 1973(Annexure  

P7) where it was stated that all those work charged employees  

who had put in ten years of service or more as on 15th August  

1972, their services would be deemed to have been regularised.  

Once the services of a work-charged employee have been  

regularised, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him  

of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public  

servants under Rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws  

must mean the protection of equal laws for all persons similarly  

situated. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because an arbitrary  

provision involves negation equality. Even the temporary or  

officiating service under the State Government has to be  

reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be  

illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a  

work-charged establishment before his regularisation has not  

been taken into consideration for determining his qualifying  

service. The classification which is sought to be made among  

Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who  

started as work-charged employees and their services regularised  

subsequently, and the others are based on any intelligible criteria  

and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a  

work-charged employee have been regularised, he is a public  

servant like other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not  

only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness,  

and for these reasons, the provisions of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3.17  

of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14  

of the Constitution.  

20. In relaxation of Rule 3.17(ii) of Rules by the respondent-

authorities, the service of sixteen work-charged employees was  

counted for pensionary benefits and gratuity vide Government of

22  

Punjab, Department of Irrigation and Power (Irrigation Branch)  

Memo No. 2/5/81/- IB(6)/16411 dated 7th November,  

1982(Annexure P2) which reads as under :--  

"Sanction of the Government of Punjab is accorded in  

relaxation of Rule 3.17 of Punjab Civil Services Rule, Vol.  

II for counting of previous work-charged service towards  

gratuity in respect of 16 work-charged employees of  

Nangal Workshop mentioned in the enclosed statement  

subject to the Conditions that no terminal benefit is/has  

been given to these work-charged employees at the time of  

regularisation of their service.  

Sanction of the Governor of Punjab is also accorded to the  

counting of service of these 16 work-charged employees  

towards pension as a special case provided no benefit has  

already been drawn by them in lieu of pensionary benefits."  

If respondent No. 1 has granted exemption from rules  

in certain cases, we do not find any justifiable reason for  

excluding others from the grant of pension and gratuity  

benefits. For this reason, too, we find Rule 3.17(ii) is bad at  

law, as it enables the Government to discriminate between  

employees similarly situated.  

21. In fairness to Mr. Bedi, the learned Addl. Advocate-General,  

the submission made by him may be adverted to. It was  

contended that (i) a work-charged employee is engaged for a  

particular purpose upon completion of which his services come  

to an end, (ii) no order has been passed by the State Government  

confirming the petitioner against the post on which his services  

are regularised and resultantly he does not fulfil the conditions  

entitling a Government servant for pension, as envisaged by Rule  

3.12 of the Rules. The counsel also tried to justify the  

Government action by placing reliance on Rule 1.4 of the Punjab  

Civil Services Rules, Vol. I. It was further contended that P.W.D.  

(B & R), Establishment Branch is not an industry and in support  

of this submission he relied on State of Punjab v. Kuldip Singh,  

ILR (1982) 2 Punj. and Har 544; (AIR 1983 NOC 94) (FB) and  

Om Parkash v. The Management of M/s. Executive Engineer,  

SYL Division, Kurukshetra, ILR (1984) 2 Punj. & Har. 215:  

(1984 Lab IC 1165) (FB) .  

22. His first submission is devoid of any merit. In para 3 of the  

petition, it is specifically averred that the petitioner had regular

23  

service, without any break of a single day, right from 1951 to the  

date of his superannuation in the year 1977. In the corresponding  

para of the written statement, this assertion has not been denied  

but the only plea taken is that his qualifying service for pension  

and gratuity starts from 15th August 1972, i.e., the day from  

which he was brought on regular cadre; and that his service in  

the work-charged establishment does not count for pension under  

R. 3.17(ii) of the Rules. The plea that he has been in continuous  

service has not been denied. It appears that on the completion of  

one project, the petitioners were engaged in another project  

either with break in service or without any break. Every plea  

raised in a petition has to be specifically denied and in the  

absence of a specific denial, the assertions made in the petition  

will normally be deemed to have been admitted or at least the  

court can proceed on the basis that it is an uncontroverted fact.  

Since there is no denial by the respondents that the petitioner has  

been in continuous service since 1951, it would be presumed that  

he has been in continuous service till the date of superannuation.  

The second contention that no order has been passed by the State  

Government confirming the petitioner against the post on which  

his services were regularised, and so on, is also without merit.  

The regularisation of services must be against a particular post,  

and the petitioner will be deemed to have been made permanent  

on the post against which his services have been regularised.  

This precisely appears to be the purport of the Punjab  

Government Memo (Annexure P7), and the award of the  

Industrial Tribunal dated June 1, 1972, published in the  

Government Gazette dated July 14, 1972, referred to earlier. In  

the award, it was specifically held that the work-charged  

employees who had put in three years of continuous service are  

entitled to be made permanent and to be confirmed after having  

put in five years' service as demanded by the workmen. The  

award may bind the workmen and the management of the P.W.D.  

(B&R) Establishment Branch. Technically speaking it may not  

be binding on other branches of the P.W.D. Once the services of  

a work-charged employee are regularised he will be deemed to  

be entitled to the benefit under R. 3.17 of the Rules."  

(emphasis supplied)  

The services were deemed to have been regularized on the  

completion of ten years of the service as per Punjab Government Memo  

dated 6th February 1983. Even otherwise, the High Court has held that

24  

once the employees have been regularized, there appears to be hardly  

any logic to deprive them of their pensionary benefits as available to  

them under the Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. It would  

be unjust and inequitable to deprive them of parity rendered under  

work-charged establishment.  

17. It has also been held that the exemption was granted from the  

rules in certain cases.  Since the rule enables the Government to  

discriminate between similarly situated employees the same deserved  

to be struck down.  There is no reason to exclude others from the  

grant of pension and gratuity benefits.  The aforesaid decision has not  

been interfered by this Court.   

 18. In Punjab State Electricity Board v. Narata Singh (2010) 4 SCC  

317, this Court once again considered the similar question of  

determination of qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits, in  

particular, the benefit of the previous service in work-charged capacity  

with the State Government and whether it can be included as  

pensionable service. The Punjab State Electricity Board by Circular  

dated 25.5.1985 adopted policy decision of State Government  

contained in the letter dated 20.5.1982.  The effect of the adoption of  

the policy decision was that temporary employees who had been  

retrenched from the services of Central/State Government and have

25  

succeeded in obtaining employment in Punjab State Electricity Board  

are entitled to count prior service rendered under Central/State  

Government, to the extent, such service was qualified for grant of  

pension under the rule of Central/ State Government. Relying upon  

Kesar Chand v. the State of Punjab (supra) it has been held that  

employee holding substantively a permanent post on the date of  

retirement is entitled to count in full as qualifying service the period of  

service rendered in the work-charged establishment. Thus, the  

department could not have excluded the same on the ground that it  

was rendered on the non-pensionable establishment.  

 19. The facts in the case of Narata Singh (supra) were that the  

Respondent No.1 was employed on a work-charged basis from  

1.2.1952 to 18.9.1953. From 25.9.1953 he joined as a work-charged  

employee in Bhakra Dam Project and resigned therefrom on  

27.1.1962.  He thereafter joined the Beas Dam Project on 1.2.1962 and  

worked at the said project till 15.4.1978 as a work-charged employee.   

He was retrenched from that project w.e.f. 15.4.1978 and was paid  

retrenchment compensation by the competent authority of the project.  

Bhakra Dam Project and Beas Dam Project are under the Department  

of Irrigation and Power, State of Punjab.  Thus, the services rendered  

under the two projects were in fact services under the State of Punjab.   

The respondent No.1 was then appointed on the work-charged basis by

26  

Punjab State Electricity Board as Special Foremen w.e.f. 6.8.1982 to  

5.1.1984. Then on 6.1.1984, he was appointed on a regular basis.  On  

attaining the age of superannuation, he moved a representation for  

grant of pension and other retiral benefits based on taking into  

account the entire service rendered by him on the work-charged basis  

under the State Government. By order dated 25.1.1991, the pension  

was declined and the only gratuity was paid to him.  The stand of the  

Board was that respondent No.1 served for 7 years 11 months and 25  

days.  As such he was not entitled to grant of pension.  The Division  

Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed Board  

to include work-charged service rendered by respondent No.1 with the  

State of Punjab, to determine qualifying service for grant of pension.   

The Court also relied upon circular dated 29.5.1992. As the appeal  

was preferred in this Court, the case was remitted for consideration on  

merits of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.  Thereafter, Single  

Judge dismissed the writ application which was questioned in the  

Letters Patent Appeal filed by Narata Singh.  The Division Bench after  

taking into consideration the documents which were filed directed  

reconsideration of the matter and kept the appeal pending.  Again, the  

Board rejected the matter by speaking order dated 16.11.2005.   

Thereafter, the appeal was decided by the High Court for grant of  

pensionary benefits on the ground that he served in the work-charged

27  

capacity which was outside the purview of the Board and the said  

service was non-pensionable so far as the State Government was  

concerned. Relying upon the Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, the  

Division Bench concluded that the rule which excluded the counting of  

work-charged service of an employee whose services were regularized  

subsequently was bad in law. The Central/State Government in  

consultation decided to share the proportionate pension liability on a  

pro-rata, service share basis. The effect of the policy decision of the  

Central Government and State Government was that temporary  

employee, who has been retrenched from the services of Central/ State  

Government and had secured employment with the Punjab State  

Electricity Board was entitled to count temporary service rendered by  

him under the Central/ State Government to the extent that such  

service was qualified for grant of pension under rules of Central/ State  

Government.  This Court in Narata Singh (supra) relied upon Kesar  

Chand (supra) and has observed:  

“25. In Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab 1988 (5) SLR 27 (P&H)  

the Full Bench held that Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Ser-

vices Rules was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of In-

dia. The Full Bench decision was challenged before this Court  

by filing a special leave petition which was dismissed. Thus, the  

ratio laid down by the Full Bench judgment that any rule which  

excludes the counting of work-charged service of an employee  

whose services have been regularised subsequently, must be held  

to be bad in law was not disturbed by this Court. The distinction  

made between an employee who was in temporary or officiating  

service and who was in work-charged service as mentioned in  

Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules disappeared

28  

when the said Rule was struck down by the Full Bench. The ef-

fect was that an employee holding substantively a permanent  

post on the date of his retirement was entitled to count in full as  

qualifying service the periods of service in work-charged estab-

lishments.  

26. In view of this settled position, there is no manner of doubt  

that the work-charged service rendered by Respondent 1 under  

the Government of Punjab was qualified for grant of pension un-

der the rules of the Government of Punjab and therefore, the  

Board was not correct in rejecting the claim of the respondent for  

inclusion of period of work-charged service rendered by him  

with the State Government for grant of pension, on the ground  

that service rendered by him in the work-charged capacity out-

side PSEB and in the Departments of the State Government was  

a non-pensionable service.  

27. The apprehension that acceptance of the case of Respondent  

1 would result into conferring a status on them as that of em-

ployees of the State of Punjab has no factual basis. It is true that  

the State Government has power to frame rules governing ser-

vices of its employees under Article 309 of the Constitution  

whereas the Board has power to prescribe conditions of service  

by framing regulations under Section 79(c) of the Electricity  

(Supply) Act, 1948. However, governance of a particular institu-

tion and issuance of instructions to fill up the gap in the fields  

where statutory provisions do not operate, is recognised as a val-

id mode of administration in modern times.  

40. So far as this argument is concerned, it is true that the Divi-

sion Bench of the High Court has expressed the above opinion in  

the impugned judgment. However, the reference to Rule 3.17(ii)  

of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as well as the Full Bench de-

cision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand v.  

State of Punjab  (supra) and the speaking order dated 16-11-2005  

passed by the Board rejecting the claim of Respondent 1 makes  

it abundantly clear that the High Court has directed the appel-

lants to count the period of service rendered by Respondent 1 in  

work-charged capacity with the State Government for determin-

ing qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Further, Re-

spondent 1 has been directed to deposit the amount of Employ-

ee’s Contributory Fund which he had received from the appel-

lants along with interest as per the directions of the Board before  

the pension is released to him.”  

(emphasis supplied)  

 20. In Habib Khan v. the State of Uttarakhand, (Civil Appeal

29  

No.10806 of 2017), State Public Services Tribunal directed the  

counting of the service rendered by a work-charged employee as  

‘qualifying service' for the pension. Writ Petition No.24 of 2007 was  

filed by the State of Uttarakhand against the said order.  The same  

was dismissed by the High Court.  Against the said order Special Leave  

to Appeal was filed by the State which was also dismissed.  Later on,  

the Full Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court took the view that the  

period of work-charged service cannot be counted for computation of  

the period of ‘qualifying service'. Based on Full Bench decision, review  

of the order dismissing Writ Petition No.24 of 2007 was sought which  

was allowed by order dated 27th July 2012 the same was questioned in  

this Court, then the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn.  Based on  

review petition, the matter was re-heard and the High Court vide order  

dated 26th May 2015 has held that the work-charged service cannot be  

counted for reckoning of the period of ‘qualifying service'. The decision  

of the Full Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court passed after the  

grant of review petition came up for consideration before this Court in  

Habib Khan v. the State of Uttarakhand.  Following order was passed  

by this Court on 23.8.2017:  

“6. The pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.17(ii) of the  

Punjab Civil Services Rules had been struck down by a Full  

Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar  

Chand vs. State of Punjab and ors. (supra). The challenge by  

the State against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the  

Punjab and Haryana High Court was negatived by this Court.

30  

The matter came up for consideration before this Court, once  

again, in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and anr. Vs.  

Narata Singh and anr. (2010) 4 SCC 317. While dealing with the  

said question this Court in paragraph 25 of the report held that  

the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  

was perfectly justified in striking down Rule 3.17(ii) of the  

Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in obliteration of the  

distinction made in the said Rules between 'temporary and  

officiating service' and 'work-charged service'. On the said basis,  

this Court took the view that the period of work-charged service  

should be reckoned for purposes of computation of ‘qualifying  

service’ for grant of pension.   

7. As already observed, the provisions of Rule 370 of the Civil  

Service Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakhand are  

pari materia with the provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab  

Civil Services Rules, discussed above. If that is so, 'we do not  

see as to why the period of service rendered on work-charged ba-

sis by the appellants should not be counted for purposes of com-

putation of 'qualifying service' for grant of pension. The pari ma-

teria provisions of Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services  

Rules having been interpreted and understood in the above man-

ner by this Court in Narata Singh (supra) we do not find any  

room for taking any other view except to hold that the appellants  

are entitled to reckon the period of work-charged service for  

purposes of computation of ‘qualifying service’ for grant of pen-

sion.  We order accordingly; allow these appeals and set aside  

the impugned orders passed by the High Court.  

8. All necessary and consequential benefit in terms of the present  

order will be paid and granted by the State to the appellants  

forthwith and without any delay.”  

 21. This Court ordered the counting of work-charged service period  

towards qualifying service on the basis that pari materia provision  

contained in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules has been  

struck down in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab & Ors (supra).  This  

Court has also relied upon Punjab State Electricity Board v. Narata  

Singh & Anr. (supra) to grant the relief.

31  

 22. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Uttar  

Pradesh has referred to the decision in Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. Union  

of India & Ors. (1979) 4 SCC 440 to contend that work-charged  

employee is the one who is engaged temporarily and their appointment  

was made, from the very nature of their employment, till the  

completion of the specified work.  Work-charged employees are entitled  

to the benefits of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes  

Act.  This Court also observed that they are in a better position than  

temporary servants who are liable to be thrown out of employment  

without any kind of compensatory benefits. The facts indicate that out  

of 36,000 work-charged employees of the Beas Project 26,000 had  

accepted retrenchment compensation. Concerning the status of work-

charged establishment and its employees this Court has observed  

thus:  

“42. A work-charged establishment broadly means an establish-

ment of which the expenses, including the wages and allowances  

of the staff, are chargeable to “works”. The pay and allowances  

of employees who are borne on a work-charged establishment  

are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated cost  

of the works.  

43. The entire strength of labour employed for the purpose of the  

Beas Project was work-charged. The work-charged employees  

are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are  

made for the execution of a specified work. From the very nature  

of their employment, their services automatically come to an end  

on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which  

they are employed. They do not get any relief under the Payment  

of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or  

any benefits under the Employees State Insurance Schemes.

32  

44. But though the work-charged employees are denied these  

benefits, they are industrial workers and are entitled to the bene-

fits of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act.  

Their rights flow from that special enactment under which even  

contracts of employment are open to adjustment and modifica-

tion. The work-charged employees, therefore, are in a better po-

sition than temporary servants like the other petitioners who are  

liable to be thrown out of employment without any kind of com-

pensatory benefits.  

49. We would like to say that in regard to the work-charged em-

ployees, it is high time that the Government framed specific  

rules to govern their employment so as to dispel all doubts and  

confusion.”  

(emphasis supplied)  

23. The question involved in the aforesaid matter was relating to the  

workers working in the construction work of the Beas Project in the  

power sector who were retrenched. They were appointed temporarily  

and under the terms and conditions of their employment, the services  

come to an end.  This Court observed that employees could not claim  

the quasi-permanent status.  Such temporary employees were not  

entitled to that benefit. Once a settlement has been reached by the  

work-charged employees they were bound by the settlement arrived.  

24. In view of the observations made by this Court in Jaswant Singh  

case (supra), it cannot be disputed that work-charged employees are  

appointed for a particular project and it was observed that their status  

was better than temporary employees. Though they cannot claim  

quasi-permanent status.  At the same time, work-charged employees  

could claim their benefits under the provisions of the Industrial

33  

Disputes Act.  This Court at the same time had observed that the time  

has come that Government should frame specific rules concerning  

service conditions of work-charged employees to dispel all doubts and  

confusion. The work-charged employees in the Jaswant Singh (supra)  

were appointed for a particular project and thereafter on completion of  

the same they were removed.  The question involved in the present  

matters is different, whether after regularization employees are entitled  

to count their service.  The question involved in Jaswant Singh (supra)  

was different and no such rule like Rule 3(8) of Rules of 1961 was  

involved.  

25. Learned Advocate General has relied upon the decision in State  

of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman (1997) 2 SCC 517 in which this Court  

considered the concept of equal pay for equal work.  This Court held  

that the concept of equal pay for equal work did not apply to work-

charged employee vis-à-vis to the regular employee of PWD, they form  

two separate and distinct classes.  This Court held that framing of the  

separate rules for a work-charged employee by excluding them from  

the general rules applicable to an employee of the regular  

establishment was not arbitrary or discriminatory.  The rules framed  

by the State of Rajasthan came up for consideration. In that context,  

this Court has pointed out the distinction in the work-charged

34  

establishment and regular establishment.  The work-charged  

employees were denied Project Allowance and Leave Encashment  

Allowance on the ground that Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 and  

Rajasthan Service (Concessions on Project) Rules, 1962 did not apply  

to them.  The High Court rejected the submission that the payment of  

compensatory allowance to the employees is contrary to the principles  

of consideration or equal pay for equal work.  It upheld the validity of  

rule (g), (h) and (i) for Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and held that  

work-charged employees are entitled to project allowance at the same  

rate as it was being paid to employees of the regular establishment.   

The High Court struck down Rules 2 (b) and (d) of Project Rules, 1962  

and Rules 4(2)(4) of Project Rules, 1975 as violative of Articles 14 and  

16 of the Constitution.  This Court referred to the decision of the  

Jaswant Singh (supra) and has followed the same.  This Court  

observed thus:  

“6. A work-charged establishment as pointed out by this Court in  

Jaswant Singh v. Union of India (1979) 4 SCC 440 broadly  

means an establishment of which the expenses, including the  

wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to “works”.  

The pay and allowances of employees who are borne on a work-

charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-

head of the estimated cost of the works. The work-charged em-

ployees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments  

are made for the execution of a specified work. From the very  

nature of their employment, their services automatically come to  

an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of  

which they are employed. Thus, a work-charged establishment is  

materially and qualitatively different from a regular establish-

ment.

35  

7. In the State of Rajasthan, the Public Works Department is  

maintaining two separate establishments: (1) Regular and (2)  

Work-charged. The employees working in the regular establish-

ment are governed by the RSR and the work-charged employees  

are governed by the Work-charged Employees Service Rules.  

The RSR are made inapplicable, inter alia, to the work-charged  

employees. The work-charged employees fall under two catego-

ries: (1) those who are working on a project and (2) those who  

are not working on a project. It appears that for the workmen en-

gaged in the work-charged establishment of Mahi Bajaj Sagar  

Project the Government has framed separate standing orders un-

der the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and  

they apply to all persons engaged in work-charged establishment  

of the said Project whose terms of service are not regulated by  

the RSR, Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control, and  

Appeal) Rules and any other Rules framed under Article 309 of  

the Constitution by the Government of Rajasthan. The standing  

orders provide not only for classification, recruitment, and ter-

mination of service but also for wages and allowances and other  

service conditions of the persons engaged in the Mahi Project.  

Whereas the employees who are not working on a project get  

work-charged pay scale those who are working on a project get a  

special pay scale and they are also entitled to other benefits and  

allowances as are applicable to all the employees covered under  

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Factories Act, 1948 and Indus-

trial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The petitioner  

and other employees represented by him are undisputably gov-

erned by the said certified standing orders. They are not treated  

as full-time government employees and, therefore, are free to uti-

lise their free time in the manner they wish. They are also enti-

tled to grant of overtime wages. A sub-division is regarded as a  

unit for the purpose of establishment of the work-charged em-

ployees. A separate seniority list of each category is maintained  

in each unit for the purpose of promotion as well as retrench-

ment. The service of a work-charged employee is ordinarily not  

transferable from one work-charged establishment to another  

work-charged establishment.”  

(emphasis supplied)  

This Court has reiterated that from the very nature of the work-

charged employee their services automatically comes to an end on

36  

completion of the work for the sole purpose for which they are  

employed.  The services are not ordinarily transferable; thus, it is  

different from a regular establishment.  

 26. Learned Advocate General has also referred to the decision in  

Punjab State Electricity Board v. Jagjiwan Ram (2009) 3 SCC 661,  

wherein the question arose granting the benefit of time-bound  

promotion scales/ increments which was available in case the  

incumbent has rendered service in the regular establishment.  This  

Court observed that regular service means services rendered after the  

regular appointment and therefore does not include service rendered  

under ad-hoc, temporary or work-charged employees.  Therefore, the  

work-charged employees could not have been granted the benefit of  

time-bound advancement of the pay scales unless they complete the  

prescribed period of service as regular employees.  This Court again  

considered the distinction between work-charged employees and  

regular employees and observed that the sources and mode of  

engagement of employees are different. Their pay and conditions of  

employment are also different.  The work-charged employees cannot be  

treated at par with regular employees.  They cannot claim  

regularization as a right.  However, they can claim protection under  

the Industrial Disputes Act. The Office Order dated 23.4.1990 came for  

consideration which made the ‘Time Bound benefit of Promotional

37  

Scale” available to a person having rendered regular service.  It cannot  

be doubted that work-charged, as well as regular establishments, are  

different.  Their mode of recruitment is also different.  This Court has  

also observed that if the service of a work-charged employee is  

regularized by any instruction or under any scheme then he becomes a  

member of regular establishment from the date of regularization.  The  

service in the work-charged establishment cannot be clubbed with the  

service of regular establishment unless a specific provision to that  

effect is made either in the statute or in the scheme of regularization.   

If under any regulation/ rule or the scheme, the services of the work-

charged employees are regularized the work-charged employees cannot  

claim benefit for fixation of seniority in the regular cadre.  This Court  

in Jagjiwan Ram (supra) has observed thus:   

“9. We have considered the respective submissions. Generally  

speaking, a work-charged establishment is an establishment of  

which the expenses are chargeable to works. The pay and allow-

ances of the employees who are engaged in a work-charged es-

tablishment are usually shown under a specified sub-head of the  

estimated cost of works. The work-charged employees are en-

gaged for execution of specified work or project and their en-

gagement comes to an end on completion of the work or project.  

The source and mode of engagement/recruitment of work-

charged employees, their pay and conditions of employment are  

altogether different from the persons appointed in the regular es-

tablishment against sanctioned posts after following the proce-

dure prescribed under the relevant Act or rules and their duties  

and responsibilities are also substantially different than those of  

regular employees.  

10. The work-charged employees can claim protection under the  

Industrial Disputes Act or the rights flowing from any particular  

statute but they cannot be treated on a par with the employees of

38  

regular establishment. They can neither claim regularisation of  

service as of right nor can they claim pay scales and other finan-

cial benefits on a par with regular employees. If the service of a  

work-charged employee is regularised under any statute or a  

scheme framed by the employer, then he becomes a member of  

regular establishment from the date of regularisation. His service  

in the work-charged establishment cannot be clubbed with ser-

vice in a regular establishment unless a specific provision to that  

effect is made either in the relevant statute or the scheme of  

regularisation. In other words, if the statute or scheme under  

which service of work-charged employee is regularised does not  

provide for counting of past service, the work-charged employee  

cannot claim benefit of such service for the purpose of fixation  

of seniority in the regular cadre, promotion to the higher posts,  

fixation of pay in the higher scales, grant of increments, etc.  

13. After noticing the earlier judgment in Jaswant Singh case,  

the Court held: (Kunji Raman case, SCC pp. 521-23, paras 8-10)  

“8. A work-charged establishment thus differs from a  

regular establishment which is permanent in nature. Setting  

up and continuance of a work-charged establishment is de-

pendent upon the Government undertaking a project or a  

scheme or a ‘work’ and availability of funds for executing  

it. So far as employees engaged in work-charged estab-

lishments are concerned, not only their recruitment and  

service conditions but the nature of work and duties to be  

performed by them are not the same as those of the em-

ployees of the regular establishment. A regular establish-

ment and a work-charged establishment are two separate  

types of establishments and the persons employed in those  

establishments thus form two separate and distinct classes.  

For that reason, if a separate set of rules are framed for the  

persons engaged in the work-charged establishment and the  

general rules applicable to persons working on the regular  

establishment are not made applicable to them, it cannot be  

said that they are treated in an arbitrary and discriminatory  

manner by the Government. It is well settled that the Gov-

ernment has the power to frame different rules for different  

classes of employees. We, therefore, reject the contention  

raised on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 653 of  

1993 that clauses (g), (h) and (i) of Rule 2 of the Rajasthan  

Service Rules are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the  

Constitution and uphold the view taken by the High Court.

39  

14. The ratio of the abovementioned judgments is that work-

charged employees constitute a distinct class and they cannot be  

equated with any other category or class of employees much less  

regular employees and further that the work-charged employees  

are not entitled to the service benefits which are admissible to  

regular employees under the relevant rules or policy framed by  

the employer.  

20. A reading of the scheme framed by the Board makes it clear  

that the benefit of time-bound promotional scales was to be giv-

en to the employees only on their completing 9/16 years’ regular  

service. Likewise, the benefit of promotional increments could  

be given only on completion of 23 years’ regular service. The  

use of the term “regular service” in various paragraphs of the  

scheme shows that service rendered by an employee after regular  

appointment could only be counted for computation of 9/16/23  

years’ service and the service of a temporary, ad hoc or work-

charged employee cannot be counted for extending the benefit of  

time-bound promotional scales or promotional increments. If the  

Board intended that total service rendered by the employees irre-

spective of their mode of recruitment and status should be count-

ed for grant of time-bound promotional scales or promotional in-

crements, then instead of using the expression "9/16 years' regu-

lar service" or "23 years' regular service", the authority con-

cerned would have used the expression "9/16 years' service” or  

“23 years’ service”. However, the fact of the matter is that the  

scheme in its plainest term embodies the requirement of 9/16  

years’ regular service or 23 years’ regular service as a condition  

for grant of time-bound promotional scales or promotional in-

crements as the case may be.”  

27. It is apparent from the aforesaid discussion that it would depend  

upon the service rules or schemes whether the period of work-charged  

service has to be counted for ACP, in case provision has been made  

under a particular statute, rule or scheme, service rendered as work-

charged employees can be counted.  It would depend upon the relevant  

provision of which benefit is claimed.  Again, this Court has  

emphasized that by its very nature of employment work-charged

40  

employees have not to continue for long, employment comes to an end  

with the project.   

28. The submission has been urged on behalf of the State of Uttar  

Pradesh to differentiate the case between work-charged employees and  

regular employees on the ground that due procedure is not followed for  

appointment of work charged employees, they do not have that much  

work pressure, they are unequal and cannot be treated equally, work-

charged employees form a totally different class, their work is  

materially and qualitatively different, there cannot be any clubbing of  

the services of the work-charged employees with the regular service  

and vice versa,  if a work-charged employee is treated as in the regular  

service it will dilute the basic concept of giving incentive and reward to  

a permanent and responsible regular employee.  

29. We are not impressed by the aforesaid submissions. The  

appointment of the work-charged employee in question had been made  

on monthly salary and they were required to cross the efficiency bar  

also. How their services are qualitatively different from regular  

employees? No material indicating qualitative difference has been  

pointed out except making bald statement. The appointment was not  

made for a particular project which is the basic concept of the work  

charged employees. Rather, the very concept of work-charged

41  

employment has been misused by offering the employment on  

exploitative terms for the work which is regular and perennial in  

nature.  The work-charged employees had been subjected to transfer  

from one place to another like regular employees as apparent from  

documents placed on record.  In Narain Dutt Sharma & Ors. v. State of  

Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (CA No.______2019 @ SLP (C) No.5775 of 2018)  

the appellants were allowed to cross efficiency bar, after ‘8’ years of  

continuous service, even during the period of work-charged services.  

Narain Dutt Sharma, the appellant, was appointed as a work-charged  

employee as Gej Mapak w.e.f 15.9.1978. Payment used to be made  

monthly but the appointment was made in the pay scale of Rs.200-

320. Initially, he was appointed in the year 1978 on a fixed monthly  

salary of Rs.205 per month.  They were allowed to cross efficiency bar  

also as the benefit of pay scale was granted to them during the period  

they served as work-charged employees they served for three to four  

decades and later on services have been regularized time to time by  

different orders. However, the services of some of the appellants in few  

petitions/ appeals have not been regularized even though they had  

served for several decades and ultimately reached the age of  

superannuation.  

 30. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the  

part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the

42  

employees on the work-charged basis.  They ought to have resorted to  

an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work-

charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device.  

Later on, though their services have been regularized.  However, the  

period spent by them in the work-charged establishment has not been  

counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only been  

deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less  

salary in work charged establishment but have also been deprived of  

counting of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services had  

been rendered by them.  The State has been benefitted by the services  

rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in work-

charged establishment.    

 31. In view of the note appended to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, there  

is a provision to count service spent on work charged, contingencies or  

non pensionable service, in case, a person has rendered such service  

in a given between period of two temporary appointments in the  

pensionable establishment or has rendered such service in the  

interregnum two periods of temporary and permanent employment.  

The work-charged service can be counted as qualifying service for  

pension in the aforesaid exigencies.  

32. The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such

43  

service to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of  

temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. We  

find that once regularization had been made on vacant posts, though  

the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis,  

considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular  

appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay  

scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted  

to be crossed. It would be highly discriminatory and irrational because  

of the rider contained in Note to Rule 3(8) of 1961 Rules, not to count  

such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service  

is sandwiched between two temporary or in-between temporary and  

permanent services.  There is no rhyme or reason not to count the  

service of work-charged period in case it has been rendered before  

regularisation. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been  

made under Rule 3(8).  It would be highly unjust, impermissible and  

irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service.   

Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees,  

once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to  

prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the  

irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period  

spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count  

the service on the basis of flimsy classification.  The rider put on that

44  

work-charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is  

discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible  

classification.  

 33. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make  

aforesaid classification to make the Rule 3(8) valid and non  

discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and  

hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity  

of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-

pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the  

qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or  

regular appointment in a pensionable establishment.  

 34. In view of the note appended to Rule 3(8), which we have read  

down, the provision contained in Regulation 370 of the Civil Services  

Regulations has to be struck down as also the instructions contained  

in Para 669 of the Financial Handbook.  

35. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized  

in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years  

whereas they have been superannuated.  As they have worked in the  

work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their  

services ought to have been regularized under the Government  

instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in Secretary,

45  

State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1.  This Court in  

the said decision has laid down that in case services have been  

rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's  

order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such  

employees.  In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked  

for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be  

proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others  

have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a  

regular one.  However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to  

claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in  

service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation.  They  

shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the  

regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from  

the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted  

as qualifying service for purpose of pension.    

36. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits  

Rules, 1961, we hold that services rendered in the work-charged  

establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid  

rule for grant of pension.  The arrears of pension shall be confined to  

three years only before the date of the order.  Let the admissible  

benefits be paid accordingly within three months.  Resultantly, the  

appeals filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are

46  

dismissed.  

 37. All pending interlocutory applications and miscellaneous  

applications, if any, are disposed of.  

.................................J.  

                 [ ARUN MISHRA ]     

.................................J.  

                 [ S. ABDUL NAZEER ]     

.................................J.  

                 [ M.R. SHAH ]   

NEW DELHI;  

SEPTEMBER 02, 2019.