Allahabad High Court
Kamal Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 December, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14428 of 2022
Petitioner :- Kamal Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Kinkar Singh,Suryaprakash Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
This Court had granted time to Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit on 21.11.2022, however, the same has not been filed. The Standing Counsel prays for further time to file a counter affidavit, however, in view of the judgment proposed to be passed, the counter affidavit may not be necessary.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner has worked as Seasonal Collection Amin since 1989 and were regularized on 14.07.2016. The short question raised by the petitioner is that his services rendered prior to the date of regularization ought to have been counted as a qualifying service for payment of the pension. This issue was squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Writ-A No. 5817 of 2020, wherein the Court while deciding the issued took note of the stand taken by the State Government, which is also extracted in paragraph no. 8 of the said judgment, wherein the State had accepted that the services rendered prior to the date of regularization are to be counted for the purposes of calculating the qualifying period for grant of pension.
The petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 18102 of 2021, which was decided on 23.02.2022, wherein this Court remanded the matter for consideration of the entitlement of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (Supra). In terms of the said direction issued by this Court on 23.02.2022, the order impugned has been passed.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the services of the petitioner from the period 1989 up to 2016 were ad hoc and thus the benefit of calculating of the said services as qualifying service cannot be granted to the petitioner. There apparently no consideration of the judgment of this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (Supra). The order prima facie does not appear to have been passed in terms of the directions issued by this Court for consideration of the case of the petitioner in the light of the Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (supra).
The similar issue has further drawn the attention of this Court in Writ-A No. 7649 of 2019 (Madan Gopal Pandey and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others), decided on 19.10.2022, Writ-A No. 4305 of 2021 (Ram Kesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and Writ-A No. 37598 of 2018 (Netra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others).
In the light of the said, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once the State Government had taken stand before the High Court that the service rendered prior to the date of regularization would be counted as qualifying services, the impugned order is clearly contrary to the stand taken by the State Government in the counter affidavit filed in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (Supra).
Considering the submissions made at the bar, it is clear that the State Government had taken a specific stand that the services rendered prior to the date of regularization shall be considered for calculation of the qualifying service and once having taken the said stand, as affirmed in the judgment in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (Supra), the State cannot take stand at variance with the said judgment, particularly in view of the fact that the judgment in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (Supra) has not been interfered in by any appellate authority.
In view of the above, the impugned order which denies the benefit of services rendered by the petitioner prior to the date of regularization cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside with directions to the respondents to calculate the qualifying services of the petitioner rendered by him prior to the date of regularization and to pay the consequential pensionary benefits to the petitioners in terms of the direction issued by this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (Supra) and subsequently followed in the other judgment, recorded above. The respondents shall pass necessary orders, as directed above, with all expedition, preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of a copy of this order before the District Magistrate, the respondent no. 2.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 9.12.2022
Shafique
