Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Nath Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 18 August, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11643 of 2018
Petitioner :- Mahendra Nath Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nisheeth Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 02.04.2018 (Annexure No. 25 to the writ petition) by which the benefits of pension and retiral benefits were denied to the petitioner on the ground that as qualifying service in terms of rules applicable being less than 10 years. The said order further indicates that as petitioner was working and appointed after 1st April 2005.
The counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 14.12.1978 and continue to work from season to season. It is argued that on 01.10.1989 the petitioner was granted temporary appointment which continue to the said temporary appointment was on ad-hoc basis against the permanent vacancy. As the service of petitioner were terminated without any order on 15.10.1991, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31464 of 1991 in which an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner, it is stated that in terms of the order dated 01.11.1991 passed by this Court the petitioner continue to work, the said Writ Petition No. 31464 of 1991 was finally allowed vide order dated 19.07.2004 with the direction to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization. As no decision was taken petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21329 of 2007 which was disposed off with the direction for deciding the claim of the petitioner, the District Magistrate rejected the claim of the petitioner, as such petitioner file yet another Writ Petition No. 48270 of 2008 the said writ petition was finally allowed vide order dated 12.03.2010 with a direction the matter was remitted reexamine the case of the petitioner. Once again representation was rejected by District Magistrate vide order dated 03.06.2010 which was challenged again in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38441 of 2010 the said writ petition was disposed off vide order dated 18.09.2012 (Annexure no. 14 to the writ petition) wherein once again the matter was remitted back for fresh decision. Subsequently the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 17.10.2013 and the petitioner was retired on 31.08.2017, for calculating the qualifying services rendered by the petitioner, only the services rendered with effect from 17.10.2013 up to 31.08.2017 have been taken into consideration and the services prior, therefore, were refused taken into consideration merely on the ground that petitioner has worked under the order passed by this Court. The said issue has been squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P.; 2019 (1) SCC 516 wherein the issue has been considered. Subsequently, after the formulation of ordinance being Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Services for Pension for Ordinance 2020, section 2 thereof was interpreted by this Court in judgment dated 09.06.2012 passed in Special Appeal No. 97 of 2021 State of U.P. And 4 Others Vs. Bhanu Pratap Sharma.
In view of the said two judgments, referred above, it is clear that the service rendered by the petitioner from 1978 shall be added up to 17.10.2013 shall also be added for determining the qualifying service, for appointment of pension and other retrial dues. Accordingly, writ petition deserves to be allowed.
In view of the finding above the impugned order dated 02.04.2018 is set aside.
The respondent shall direct to compute and pay the pension calculating the services rendered by the petitioner with effect from 1978 up to 17.10.2013 as qualifying service. The said exercise shall be completed expeditiously within four weeks.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021
Vikram
