Allahabad High Court
Lallu Singh vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy. ... on 2 November, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37414 of 2018
Petitioner :- Lallu Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Pravesh Dhar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by Commissioner Evam Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P, Lucknow thereby rejecting claim of the petitioner for grant of pension. Further direction has been sought for direction to the respondents to add service of the petitioner rendered by him as Seasonal Revenue Collection Amin and give him pensionary and other benefits.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Seasonal Revenue Collection Amin on 01.03.1987 in District Bulandshahar and in the year 2010, his services were regularised. Subsequently the petitioner superannuated from service.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had given representation to the respondents for adding his services rendered by him while working as Seasonal Revenue Collection Amin and grant his pension and other post retiral benefits. As the case of the petitioner was not considered by the authorities, he has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 12208 (S/S) of 2018, which was disposed of by means of order dated 27.04.2018 directing the Authority concerned to consider and decide his representation.
5. In compliance of directions issued by this Court dated 27.04.2018, petitioners representation was considered by the respondents and the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has never worked as regular employee either on temporary or daily wage or as work charge employee and consequently his services rendered as Seasonal Revenue Collection Amin cannot be counted towards grant of pension and accordingly rejected the representation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary as well as contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey and 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others, Writ -A No. 5817 of 2020 (decided on 08.10.2021).
7. It is stated that the persons similarly placed who were initially appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin, had approached this Court for similar relief. This Court after considering entire conspectus of the matter has given following finding :-
"24. In view of the above discussion and given the law elucidated by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in various pronouncements referred above, the services rendered by the petitioners as Seasonal Collection Amin cannot be ignored for extending the benefits of pension and other retiral benefits to them on the pretext that their appointment is to be treated from the date of regularisation and nor from the date of their engagement as work charged employee.
25. Consequently, the writ petitioner is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent to compute pensionary benefit payable to the petitioners after taking into account their entire service including the service rendered by them as Seasonal Collection Amin. The amount payable to the petitioners shall be computed within three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court, and the same shall be paid within the next two months. The respondents shall also continue to pay current pensionary benefits as and when the same fell due."
7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted as the services rendered by him as Seasonal Revenue Collection Amin cannot be counted towards counting his length of service for pensionary benefits and the petitioner has never worked as regular employee and therefore there is no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting claim of the petitioner.
8. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Collection Amin on substantial capacity and his services rendered previously cannot be considered for grant of pensionary benefits and his regular services can be counted only from the date of his regularisation and not previously.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. It is noticed that coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (supra) has considered the entire conspectus of the controversy and has taken into consideration various judgments and in the case of similarly situated Seasonal Collection Amins has observed that the services rendered by them as Seasonal Collection Amin will also be counted towards calculation of pensionary benefits of such persons.
11. Considering that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (supra) and there is no reason as to why same benefit cannot be granted to the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, present writ petition is liable to be allowed in terms of the directions issued in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (supra).
13. In view of the above the services rendered by the petitioner as Seasonal Revenue Collection Amin cannot be ignored for extending the benefits of pension and other retiral benefits to him on the pretext that his appointment is to be treated from the date of regularisation and not from the date of his engagement as work charged employee.
14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to compute pensionary benefit payable to the petitioner after taking into account his entire service including the service rendered by him as Seasonal Revenue Collection Amin. The amount payable to the petitioner shall be computed within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order and the same shall be paid to him within the next two months. The respondents shall also continue to pay current pensionary benefits as and when the same fell due.
Order Date :- 2.11.2022
Arun/-
