Chheda Lal Pathak vs State Of U.P. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2334 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 20
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 17543 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Chheda Lal Pathak
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Secy.Secondary Education,Lko. & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrawan Kumar Verma,Anamika Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 21.08.2020 passed by the opposite party no.3, contained at Annexure 1 to the writ petition and also to command the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and count the services w.e.f. 25.09.1980 up to 14.05.1986 for pensionary benefits and pay him entire admissible service benefits and further to pay the differences of Gratuity and revise the pension of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

Brief facts of the case are that the post of Assistant Teacher (Science/Math) was advertised. The petitioner applied for the said post and selected vide order dated 14.09.1980 as ad-hoc in the pay-scale of Rs.300-550/-. The petitioner joined on the said post on 25.09.1980 at Government Inter College, Rohida, District Chamoli. Since the post of Assistant Teacher (Science/Math) was not vacant at GIC, Rohida, District Chamoli, he was absorbed against the vacant post in G.I.C., Bachhuvanvan, District Chamoli. The petitioner was transferred from District Chamoli to Government Diksha Vidyalaya, Shivgarh, Rae Bareli vide order dated 21.06.1983 and later he was relieved vide order dated 21.06.1983 and the petitioner joined on 28.07.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission and he was appointed as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) vide appointment order dated 07.05.1986. The petitioner joined on 14.05.1986. The petitioner retired from the services on 30.06.2013. The petitioner raised his grievance for counting the ad-hoc services w.e.f. 25.09.1980 to 14.05.1986 but no heed was paid. The petitioner preferred a writ petition No.4585 (SS) of 2020 before this Hon'ble Court, which has been disposed of vide judgment and order dated 18.02.2020 with direction to decide the representation of the petitioner, which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 3 (8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 has been treated valid and non-discriminatory, however, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. and others; 2020 1 SCC (L&S) page 1 has held that the services rendered even prior to regularization in the capacity of work charged employees, contingencies 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. It has also been submitted that in the case of the petitioner, the appointment order dated 14.09.1980 itself indicates that the petitioner was appointed against clear and substantive post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Science and Math), hence the petitioner fulfilled the three conditions of Regulation 361 of C.S.R. on account of which the said services cannot be ignored for pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and denial to count the past services of the petitioner for pensionary benefits is arbitrary and illegal and hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Per contra, leaned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade against the substantive post on 25.09.1980. The petitioner was selected on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade by the U.P. Public Service Commission on 07.05.1986 and he joined as a fresh candidate on the post. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that since the petitioner has joined as a fresh candidate, may be in the same college, against the vacancies published by the U.P. Public Service Commission, therefore, continuation of service and the claim which has been sought by the petitioner for the purpose of counting his past service considering the case of Prem Singh (supra) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. However, he has also pointed out that an ordinance has already come into force on 21.10.2020 and the judgment passed in the case of Prem Singh (supra) is not applicable in the instant case. Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that the services of the petitioner as ad-hoc are not regularized and as such, the same cannot be counted for the pensionary benefits. It is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits are already on the record.

The petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis as Assistant Teacher and he had worked on the said post till he was joined in pursuance to the selection conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was joined on the post of Assistant Teacher in the college as a fresh candidate through the U.P. Public Service Commission. I have perused the appointment letter of the petitioner dated 07.05.1986 which is appended as Annexure 6 to the petition, wherein it has been mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner is on temporary regular basis. The relevant portion is quoted as under :

"???????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????, ?0???0 ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? (???????) ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??0 540-5-600-20-640-????0-20-760-?0??0- 30-910 ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??????????? ???? ???????"

I have also perused the impugned order dated 21.08.2020 wherein the following reasons have been given while rejecting the representation of the petitioner :

"?? ?????? ??????(???), ???? ?????, ???? ?? ???? ??0 ??-1/1818-30/86-87 ?????? 07.05 1960 ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????, ?0???0 ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? ??? ?????? 06.08.1988 ?? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? 30.06.2013 ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????, ???? ?? ??????????? ???? ?????? 20.07.1983 ?? 05.08.1988 ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????????, ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ???

?????0?? 361 ?? ???????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???????? (Substantive Appointment) ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? 25.09.1980 ?? 14.05.1986 ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???

???? ?? ??????????? ?????? 26.02.2020 ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ??0 4585 (??0??0)/2020 ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????????? ? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? 18.02.2020 ?? ????? ??? ?????????? ????????? ???? ???? ???"

Perusal of the appointment letter as also the reasons assigned by the respondents while passing the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was appointed as a fresh candidate by the U.P. Public Service Commission and therefore, he is not entitled for counting the past services, which he rendered prior to the fresh appointment.

So far as the ratio of Prem Singh (supra) is concerned it is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as the ordinance come into force and the judgment of Prem Singh's case (supra) is no more in existence.

In view of the above, I do not find any force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no illegality in the impugned order.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.2.2021

VNP/-