Allahabad High Court
Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1953 of 2022
Petitioner :- Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Anubahg-1 Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that factual matrix of the case is that petitioner was appointed on sanction and vacant post which was filled in the Department of Ayurvedic and Unani Medical, District Bareilly, in furtherance of the order dated 27.05.2004. He further submits that later on his service was regularized vide order dated 28.10.2021 with effect from 04.06.2007. He submits that benefit of service from 27.03.2000 upto till 04.06.2007 should also be considered for the purpose of pension and other retiral dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue with regard to identically situated persons has also been decided vide judgment and order dated 15.09.2021 passed in Writ A No. 15529 of 2018 (Dr. Ram Sharan Tripathi vs State of U.P. and another). Learned counsel has placed reliance on para 6 to 8 of the aforesaid judgement which is extracted as under:-
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the proposition adverted to in the aforenoted judgment. He, however, submits that in view of the amendment brought about by Act, 2021, defining ''qualifying service', the service rendered by petitioner as an ad-hoc employee would not fall within the ambit of the expression "qualifying service" defined under Section 2 of Ordinance dated 21.10.2020 (subsequently Act, 2021), which reads thus:
"2. Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule, regulation or Government order for the purpose of entitlement of pension to an officer, "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."
7. The provision was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. through its Secretary, Foods and Civil Supplies Vs. Mahendra Singh4. The relevant portion of the order is extracted:
"It is clear from perusal of Section 2 of the Ordinance that it would have effect notwithstanding anything contained in U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 or Regulation 361 and 370 of the Civil Service Regulation. Though it has been informed at the bar that in certain writ petitions, validity of the aforesaid U.P. Ordinance has been challenged, however, even if for purpose of adjudicating the present appeal the Ordinance is accepted as it is, section 2 thereof would inure to the benefit to the opposite party-petitioner and not to the benefit of appellants. The word "Qualifying Service" has been defined in Section 2 of the aforesaid U.P. Ordinance to mean 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.
As discussed aforesaid, the appellants have admitted the appointment of the opposite party-petitioner on temporary post of Godown Chaukidar from 04.09.1981 till the date of his appointment on a regular post in 1997. Therefore, under this very U.P. Ordinance, the petitioner is entitled to his claim for counting the period of his service from the date of his appointment on 04.09.1981 on a temporary post till his regularization on the permanent post in the year 1997.
In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed."
8. In the facts of the present case, the admitted position, inter se parties is, (i) petitioner came to be appointed against substantive vacancy; (ii) the salary was borne by Government; (iii) petitioner was entitled to all benefits as applicable to a State employee.
He further submits that infact the other writ petitions were also decided on the same premises and he is seeking the benefit of the order dated 24.03.2022 passed in Writ No. 1619 of 2022 (Dr. Veer Singh Katiyar vs. State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Anubhag-I Lko. and 3 Ors). Other persons/retired employees were also accorded the benefit of the adhoc period while considering the issue of pension and other benefit vide order dated 17.04.2022.
On the other hand learned Standing Counsel for the State very vehemently opposes the contention aforesaid and submits that infact the petitioner is not entitled for relief as claimed because of the fact that his service was regularized from 04.06.2007 and prior to that there shall be no consideration of any of the period because the same is final cut off date.
Be that as it may, the respondent no. 1 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of post retiral dues for the period of 27.03.2002 to 14.06.2007 in the light to the judgement and order dated 24.03.2022 which was passed in Writ A No. 1619 of 2022 and 26.11.2019 passed in Service Bench No. 1100 of 2007 (Shiv Nandan Singh vs. State of U.P thru Secy. Medical Education & 2 Ors.)
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022
Ujjawal
