Allahabad High Court
Madan Gopal Pandey And 2 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7649 of 2019
Petitioner :- Madan Gopal Pandey And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Sitapuri,Anupam Bajpai,Durgendra Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Anupam Bajru, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioners have challenged order dated 26.12.2020, passed by the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar thereby rejecting claim of the petitioners for grant of pension. Further direction has been sought for direction to the respondents to add service of the petitioners rendered by them as 'Seasonal Collection Amin' and give them pensionary and other benefits according to Government Order dated 30.04.2019.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 was appointed on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin on 16.16.1983, petitioner no. 2 on 01.08.1979 and petitioner no. 3 on 27.06.1985, in District Ambedkar Nagar. Their names find mention in the select list prepared in the year 2013 of Seasonal Collection Amins of District Ambedkar Nagar and in the year 2016, their services were regularised in pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs.2000/-. Subsequently the petitioners superannuated from service on 31.010.2020.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they had given representation to the respondents for adding their services rendered by them while working as Seasonal Collection Amin and grant their pension and other post retiral benefits. As the case of the petitioners was not considered by the authorities, they have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition Nos. 12417 (S/S) of 2018, which was disposed of by means of order dated 09.05.2018, directing the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar to consider and decide theie representation expeditiously by reasoned and speaking order.
5. In compliance of directions issued by this Court dated 15.10.2020, petitioners representation was considered by the respondents and the same was rejected by order dated 05.07.2018, on the ground that the petitioners had never worked as regular employees either on temporary or daily wage or as work charge employee and consequently their services rendered as Seasonal Collection Amin cannot be counted towards grant of pension and accordingly rejected the representation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 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."
8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted as the services rendered by them as Seasonal Collection Amin cannot be counted towards counting their length of service for pensionary benefits and the petitioners have never worked as regular employees and therefore there is no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting claim of the petitioners.
9. It is stated that the petitioners were appointed as Collection Amin on substantial capacity on various dates and their services rendered previously cannot be considered for grant of pensionary benefits and their regular services can be counted only from the date of their regularisation and not previously.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. 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.
12. It is further noticed that on the previous date this Court had granted time to learned Standing Counsel to inform this Court as to whether judgment in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (Supra) has attained finality. Learned Standing Counsel submits that he could not obtain any instructions in this regard.
13. Considering that the case of the petitioners are 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 petitioners.
14. Accordingly, present writ petition is liable to be allowed in terms of the directions issued in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (supra).
15. In view of the 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 appointments are to be treated from the date of regularisation and not from the date of their engagement as work charged employees.
16. Consequently, the writ petitione is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents 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 certified copy of this order and the same shall be paid to them within the next two months. The respondents shall also continue to pay current pensionary benefits as and when the same fell due.
Order Date :- 19.10.2022
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
