Mevati Devi vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4437 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8342 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Mevati Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Irrigation & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent-State.

The petitioner's deceased husband namely Late Sri Krishna Dutt Singh was initially engaged as work charge employee on 1.6.1977 and subsequently, in pursuance to the departmental letter dated 27.2.2004, he was given appointment on the post on Cleaner on regular basis w.e.f. 17.3.2004. He retired from service on 30.11.2013. Based on the aforesaid date of regularization till his retirement from service on 30.11.2013 the petitioner had put in 9 years, 8 months and 11 days of service as a regular employee. Under the provisions of the relevant Civil Service Regulations and other rules qualifying service entitling a government servant for pension is 10 years. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill the said 10 years of service and in this regard reliance has been placed upon a government order dated 31.7.2001.

In this particular case the petitioner's service was short by 3 months and seventeen days as against the qualifying service of 10 years, however, the opposite parties while passing the impugned order have failed to take note of the provisions of Regulation 468 of the Civil Service Regulations which provides that "the amount of pension that may be granted is determined by length of service. In calculating the length of qualifying service", fractions of a half year equal to three month and above shall be treated as a complete one-half year and reckoned as qualifying service. In the light of the said provision, as the petitioner had put in 9 years 8 months and 11 days in service, it was short by only 3 months and 17 days, therefore, in view of Regulation 468, the same would be treated as six months, consequently, he fulfills the qualifying service of ten years.

In view of the above, though in view of the Division Bench judgment rendered in Special Appeal (Defective) No.23 of 2014 reported in (2015) 8 ADJ 716 the services rendered by the petitioner as a muster-roll or work-charge employee cannot be counted for the purposes of calculating the qualifying service for pension, nevertheless, he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in Regulation 468 of the Civil Service Regulations, but this aspect of the matter was not considered by the opposite parties, accordingly the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the competent authority (respondent No.3) to take a fresh decision in terms of the observations made hereinabove within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Consequences as regards the payment of pension and other post-retirement benefits shall follow as per rules based on the decision so taken.

This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Order Date :- 23.3.2021

Gautam