Allahabad High Court
Shiv Rani vs State Of ... on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 25541 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shiv Rani
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Co-Operative Deptt. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Mani Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Sri Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to pay arrears of salary and other post-retiral benefits from the date of his initial appointment/joining on 31.01.1977 granting parity with judgment in the case of Chandra Pal Singh Yadav (Dead) v. M.V.S. Rami Reddy and others [Criminal Appeal no.7982 of 2019].
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Kurk Amin on 31.01.1977. It is submitted that at that time, Kurk Amins were not treated to be Government servants and, therefore, one Chandra Prakash Pandey had filed Writ Petition No.199(S/S) of 1991 seeking direction that they may be treated as Government servants. The Writ Petition was allowed vide order dated 26.04.1993 against which Special Appeal No.15(S/B) of 1994 and other connected appeals were filed and were dismissed vide judgment and order dated 05.05.1995. In Special Appeal no.39 (S/B) of 1994 filed by Chandra Prakash Pandey and others, directions were issued that Kurk Amins are holding civil posts and they are therefore government servants and their pay should be regulated by the existing pay-scale. It is submitted that Civil Appeal No.8467 of 1995 against aforesaid judgment was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20.03.2001. Learned counsel submits that as per the Circular C-93 dated 22.11.2002, the initial date of appointment of petitioner has been indicated as 30.04.1983. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the U.P. Cooperative Collection Fund and the Amins and Other Staff Service Rules, 2002 was thereafter notified and fresh appointment orders were issued with regard to said Kurk Amins. The said action was challenged in Writ Petition No.7326(S/S) of 2004 (Chandra Prakash Pandey and others v. State of U.P and others) whereby in terms of judgment and order dated 20.03.2001 by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the department was directed to treat all Kurk Amins as government servants. The said petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 25.11.2008 and was upheld right upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.312 of 2017.
It is submitted that petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No.6004 (S/S) of 2018 in which vide order dated 27.02.2018, while disposing of the petition, directions were issued to opposite parties to decide representation of petitioner in light of judgments indicated therein. It is submitted that despite the said direction, opposite parties are taking petitioner's date of appointment as 30.04.1983 instead of 31.01.1977. Learned counsel for petitioner has also drawn attention to judgment and order dated 14.10.2019 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal 7982 of 2019 in which it has been held that benefit of entire service is to be reckoned for calculating and computing the retiral dues. It is submitted that the said judgement has been rendered in similar circumstances.
Learned counsel has also drawn attention to order dated 31.12.2018 issued by Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative U.P., Lucknow in which directions have been issued with regard to petitioner that the service and pensionary benefits should be calculated by taking into account the entire services rendered by him even prior to notification of Rules of 2002.
In view of aforesaid, it is submitted that petitioner is entitled for consideration of services rendered right from 1977 for the purposes of service and pensionary benefits.
For the said grievance, petitioner is already said to have submitted a representation dated 09.08.2019 sent through speed post. At present, learned counsel for petitioner restricts his prayer for a final decision with regard to the same.
Considering the innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner, without entering in to merits of the case, Opposite party no.1, i.e. Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department U.P. is directed to decide aforesaid representation of petitioner expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order taking into account the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.7982 of 2019 and the directions dated 31.12.2018, within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. Petitioner shall also annex a copy of the representation dated 19.07.2020 along with a copy of this order.
In terms of above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.1.2021
prabhat
