Allahabad High Court
Surya Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. ... on 27 April, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1434 of 2014
Petitioner :- Surya Bahadur Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Revenue Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vyas Narain Shukla,Jai Shrinet
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.10.2013 whereby the respondents have denied the service benefits for the purpose of pension, Gratuity, and other retiral benefits on the ground that as per The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Ordinance 2020, petitioner is not entitled for the same.
Petitioner was appointed on the post of Seasonal Collection Amins on 01.08.1986. He got regularized on 01.10.2003 and retired on 31.08.2004.
Similar controversy has already been adjudicated by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 17.2.2023 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, leading one is Writ-A No.8968 of 2022, wherein issue relating to interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Act of 2021 for counting qualifying service for the purpose of pension with regard to Seasonal Colleciton Peons/Amins has been dealt with in detail by this Court. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads:
"....21. Law regarding counting of the period of services rendered earlier as Seasonal Collection Peon/Collection Amin for calculation of post-retiral benefits is long settled by a large number of judgments. Suffice would be to refer to the judgment a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Board of Revenue through its Chairman: The District Magistrate and UP-Zila Adhikari vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006 (5) AWC 5194 (DB). The said judgment is followed till date. Furthermore, Fundamental Rule 56 as it stood amended by the U.P. Amendment Act No. 24 of 1975 allows for retirement of a temporary employee and in clause (e) of the Fundamental Rule 56 it is provided that retiral benefits shall be made available to every employee who retires under this Rule. Even after the coming into force of the Act of 2021, since, their appointment is against a post, hence, they are squarely covered even by the original Section 2 of the Act of 2021. Further, in view of interpretation as given above to Section 2 of the Act of 2021 where it is held that the work on temporary or permanent post needs to be read as work taken from a person on a position, be it temporary or permanent, otherwise, it again would be hit by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh (supra), thus, there can be no dispute that they are entitled for pension by counting in services rendered by them as non-regular employees.
22. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, all the orders impugned in the writ petitions are passed either on the ground that they are covered by the Ordinance/Act of 2021 or they were not party in case of Prem Singh (supra) or without considering the judgment of Prem Singh (supra) and hence, the same are squarely covered by the finding given above. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot stand and are set aside. However, petitioners shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only.
23. All the writ petitions are allowed."
Since grievance of petitioner in the present petition is similar to one which has already been adjudicated by this Court in the aforesaid case, the benefit of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.2.2023 shall also be made available to the present petitioner in the same terms. Thus, the impugned order cannot stand as the petitioner is held entitled for counting of services rendered by him prior to his regularization.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.10.2013 is hereby set aside. However, petitioner shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only. Payment to petitioner shall be made expeditiously.
.
[Vivek Chaudhary J.]
Order Date :- 27.4.2023
-Amit K-
