Satish Chandra vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10614 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17808 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Satish Chandra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Nikhil Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 15.07.2022 whereby the respondent-Nagar Nigam has refused to grant him pension and other benefits on retirement which he claim to be entitled.

The facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on Adhoc basis on post of Tax Inspector Class-II on 22.03.1995. He was regularized on 15.09.2003 and thereafter he retired on 30.06.2020.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that he is entitled for pension under U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 (herein after referred to as Rules of 1981). He further submits that similar controversy has already been settled by this Court by its judgment dated 04.04.2023 in Writ-A No.5635 of 2023 (Jaidev Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) whereby Rules of 1981 have been interpreted to include services rendered before regularization as qualifying services for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:

"The present Rules of 1981 are parallel to the Rules of State Government which have been read down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra), being held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as they create an artificial categorization of similarly situated employees. In the present case also an artificial classification is created as admittedly, as the daily wager employees perform the same duties as the regular employees and are throughout treated as the regular employee. They were also regularized in continuation of their daily wage services. Thus, the matter is squarely covered by the law settled in case of Prem Singh (Supra) and Dr. Shyam Kumar (supra)."

Since pensionary benefits of petitioner is also governed by the same rule, the present petitioner is also held to be entitled for the same relief. In view thereof, the benefit of the order dated 04.04.2023 passed in Writ-A No.5635 of 2023, shall also be made available to the present petitioner.

Thus, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 15.07.2022 is set aside.

Respondents are directed to ensure regular payment of pensionary and other benefits to the petitioners under the Rules of 1981, treating his entire service to be performed as regular employee of the Nagar Palika within a period of three months.

[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]

Order Date :- 11.4.2023

M.S. Ansari