Allahabad High Court
Bhola Nath Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8090 of 2022
Petitioner :- Bhola Nath Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Dept. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Kant Dixit,Anuj Kumar Mishra,Swati Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed off.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him post retiral dues i.e. pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other admissible dues treating him as a retired regular Collection Amin in service since 05.06.1986. His further prayer is to pay the difference of salary of the post of regular Collection Amin as per his seniority providing all the benefits.
The case set forth by the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin in District Sultanpur on 13.02.1978 by the respondents and continued to work as such when the regular selection was held in the year 1986 wherein he claims to have been duly selected after passing the written examination, physical test and interview. It is contended that despite regular selection of the petitioner, he was permitted to work only as a Seasonal Collection Amin. Being aggrieved with the same, he preferred Writ Petition No.784 (SS) of 2011 in re: Ram Milan Dubey and others vs. State of U.P. and others, which was disposed off with certain directions. Subsequently the petitioner claims to have been permitted to have been given joining on 27.07.2012 on the post of regular Collection Amin in pursuance to which he joined as regular Collection Amin and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2022. However, the petitioner was not paid any post retiral benefits. Hence, the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner continued to work after a selection as a Collection Amin yet the work was only taken from him as a Seasonal Collection Amin and once he has been regularized and given joining as a regular Collection Amin on 27.07.2012, consequently his entire period of service from 05.06.1986 should be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of post retiral benefits. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 03.08.2017 - Writ Petition No.4963 (SS) of 2015, to contend that in similar circumstances this Court, after considering the judgment of Pratap Narain Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.4031 (SS) of 2001 as affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held the petitioner as entitled for retiral benefits by granting him benefits of service from 05.06.1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being similarly circumstanced is also entitled for the similar benefits.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has argued that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Collection Amin on regular basis by the answering respondents on 27.07.2012 and he superannuated on 31.01.2022 and consequently has only worked for a period of nine years six months and four days on regular basis. Thus, it is contented that once the qualifying service of 10 years is sine-qua-non for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits and the services of the petitioner being less than that as such he would not be entitled for payment of retiral benefits.
So far as the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra) is concerned, it is contended that the services of Pratap Narain Pandey were regularized by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, and he had been provided seniority but the payment had not been made and as such the case of Pratap Narain Pandey is said to be distinguishable and not applicable with respect to the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the records. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he retired on 31.01.2022 after being appointed on the post of Collection Amin on regular basis on 29.08.2012. Thus, the qualifying service is only of nine years six months and four days. However, this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari (supra) after considering the facts and circumstances of that case as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra) has held the petitioner therein to be entitled for certain benefits. From perusal of record, it does not come out that the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner after considering his appointment in the year 1986 and as to whether the benefit rendered from 05.06.1986 would be added to the service rendered by the petitioner after having been regularly appointed as Collection Amin on 27.07.2012. Even otherwise, the applicability of the judgment in the case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari (supra) would have to be considered by the respondents taking into consideration the facts set forth in the case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari (supra) as well as in the case of the petitioner. However, as all these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the respondents, consequently at this stage no orders can be passed by this Court leaving it open for the respondents to pass an order in this regard.
Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the present petition is finally disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to respondent no. 4 within a period of ten days from today along with judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari (supra). The respondent no. 4 shall thereafter proceed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation along with certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case set forth by the petitioner and it would be open for the respondent no. 4 to decide the claim of the petitioner perfectly in accordance with law and the rules applicable in this regard.
Order Date :- 1.12.2022
Nitesh
