Smt. Madhuri vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 4014 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4712 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Madhuri
 
Respondent :- U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd.Through Nabaging Dir. & Ors
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Dr. Sheelendra Kumar,D.P.S. Chauhan
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,P.K. Sinha
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J. 

1.The petitioner was appointed as Clerk/Typist in U.P. State Sugar Corporation on daily wage basis on 02.5.1986. Services of the petitioner were regularised with effect from 19.10.1996 in the scale permissible to a Assistant. While serving as Assistant, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'V.R.S.') vide application dated 29.12.2011.

2.It appears that immediately before the petitioner made the application, noted above, he filed an application dated 15.12.2011, Annexure-11, for inclusion of her temporary service period of ten years while considering the petitioner's claim under V.R.S. No decision thereon was taken and, therefore, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.9281(SS) of 2011, which was disposed of while directing the respondents to take a decision on representation of the petitioner. Vide order dated 21.1.2012, Anneure-2, detailed and reasoned order has been passed in reference to service conditions of the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be given benefit of temporary service while considering her claim under V.R.S.

3.This court has taken note of the fact that order dated 21.1.2012 was not challenged. The petitioner did not even withdraw her application under V.R.S. filed on 29.12.2011.

4.Vide order dated 08.8.2012, Annexure-1, application of the petitioner under V.R.S. has been allowed.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of temporary services from 1986 to 1996, as noted above. It has been pointed out that the petitioner also recorded an objection on order dated 08.8.2012 itself.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to support his claim for benefit of service on daily wage basis under the service conditions/rules governing service of the petitioner or under V.R.S.

7.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to take instructions.

8.List after two weeks.

Order Date :- 6.9.2012

A.Nigam