Allahabad High Court
Ramji Tiwari vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11439 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ramji Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. R.V. Shukla Advocate holding brief for Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Notices to respondent No.5 stand dispensed with.
Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22nd February, 2021 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Division, Varanasi arrayed as respondent No.3 whereby petitioner's grievance with regard to grant of pension has been rejected on the ground that he has not put in 10 years of qualifying service as required under the Rules.
Since facts narrated in the petition are undisputed and the matter pertains to adjudication of petition on only the aspect of legal issue, petition as such is being adjudicated upon at the admission stage itself without calling for counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher in the institution concerned which is an intermediate college recognized and aided by the State Government. It is submitted that the management vide resolution dated 14th October, 1989 approved the petitioner's selection whereafter the appointment letter dated 15th October, 1989 was issued and the petitioner joined in the institution. It is submitted that petitioner continued on a temporary basis in the institution and thereafter his services were regularized in terms of Section 33-G of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 and orders pertaining to same were passed on 22nd March, 2016.
It is submitted that the petitioner although earlier entitled for counting of temporary service for purposes of pensionary benefits in terms of Regulation 370 of the Civil Service Regulations is now however governed by U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Ordinance of U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 since he has superannuated on 31st October, 2020.
The fact pertaining to temporary appointment of petitioner and his subsequent regularization on 22nd March, 2016 is undisputed and has been indicated in the impugned order itself.
So far as the question pertaining to counting of temporary services rendered by petitioner prior to his regularization for purposes of pension is concerned, the matter is already covered by judgment and order dated 4th February, 2021 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 1003 of 2020, State of U.P. and others versus Mahendra Singh whereunder it has been noticed that temporary service rendered by officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of service rules would count as qualifying service for purposes of entitlement of pension to an officer. The relevant portion of the judgment are as follows:-
"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 aforesaid, and particularly the judgment rendered by division bench of this Court, which is still binding upon this Court, the impugned order dated 22nd February, 2021 having been passed contrary to the aforesaid judgment is therefore quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari and the respondent No.2 i.e. Director Secondary Education Government of U.P., Lucknow is directed to take into account the temporary services rendered by petitioner prior to his regularization for purposes of counting as qualifying service for pension. Appropriate orders with regard to same shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.
Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022
Prabhat
