Allahabad High Court
Dr. Neeru Verma vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 26 March, 2021
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8163 of 2021
Petitioner :- Dr. Neeru Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Medical Health & Family & Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Somesh Tripathi,Anuj Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.03.2021 by which the representation of the petitioner for payment of pension and gratuity has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not completed ten years of qualifying service for payment of pension.
Brief facts of this case are that vide order dated 07.03.1996, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Associate Professor (Organizational Behaviour) in the Institute at fixed pay of Rs.9200/- for a period up to 30.09.1996 or till the joining of selected candidate by U.P. Police Service Commission. On 06.05.1988, the petitioner was granted regular pay scale of Rs.10,000-325-15,2000 from the fixed pay of Rs.9200/-. The services of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 07.01.2011. The petitioner was retired on 30.06.2018 after attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Associate Professor. On 27.06.2018, the petitioner had moved an application to the opposite party no.2 for payment of retiral dues and pension and when the same were not paid, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.19943 (SS) of 2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2020 with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation raising all his grievances along with a copy of this petition to the respondent no.1 (Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow) within a period of ten days and the respondent no.1 is directed to decide and dispose of the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months. In compliance of the order of this Court, the respondent no.1 has considered the grievance of the petitioner and rejected the representation of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 01.03.2021.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the representation of the petitioner has been decided by the respondent no.1 without considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh vs State of U.P. and others (Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2019). In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the services rendered in the work charged establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid Rule for grant of pension. The petitioner has rendered more than 22 years of service and, therefore, she is entitled for pension but the respondent no.1 without considering the length of service wrongly observed that she has completed only 7 years and 6 months regular service hence, she is not entitled for pension. The respondent no.1 has illegally denied the benefit of pension and gratuity to the petitioner only on the ground that she has not completed essential qualifying service.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has rendered only seven years and six months regular service in the establishment of Medical Health and Family Welfare Department. As per the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020, the services rendered by the petitioner as work charged employee could not be counted as essential qualifying service. Hence, the claim of the petition for payment of pension and gratuity cannot be granted.
I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor (Organizational Behaviour) on 07.03.1996 and thereafter her services were regularized on 07.01.2011. The petitioner was retired on 30.06.2018 after attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the of the petitioner is that since she has completed more than 22 years of service, she is entitled for pension in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra).
After pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment of Prem Singh's case (Supra), the Governor in pursuance of the provisions of Clause (1) of Article 213 of the Constitution of India has promulgated "The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service For Pension And Validation Ordinance, 2020". The Ordinance provides that 'qualifying service' means the services rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service rules prescribed by the Government for the post. Hence, the benefit of Prem Singh's case (Supra) could not be granted to the petitioner.
The petitioner was regularized on 07.01.2011 and was retired from service on 30.06.2018. Hence, the petitioner has rendered seven years and six months services on regular basis. The petitioner has not completed ten years of qualifying service for pension and gratuity and, therefore, she is not entitled for the same. The respondent no.1 has not committed any error while passing the impugned order.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.3.2021
akverma/vikas
