Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Dubey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 April, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5719 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rajesh Dubey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Pandey
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ashwani Kumar holding brief of Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3.
Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents-authorities to compute pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner after taking into account the entire service rendered by him including the services as work-charge/daily wages and fix pension accordingly.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Supervisor on work-charge/daily wage basis in the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad on 01.04.1988. The petitioner was regularized on the said post by order dated 06.01.2011. He has continuously worked in the Ghaziabad Development Authority and on attaining the age of superannuation has retired from service on 30.09.2020.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that he is entitled for pension under U.P. Development Authorities Non-Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Rule, 2011 (Rules of 2011). He further submits that similar controversy has already been settled by this Court by its judgment dated 17.03.2023 in Writ-A no.890 of 2022 (Jai Prakash Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and Others) whereby Rules of 2011 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:
"Therefore, none of the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the facts of the present case. The present Rules of 2011 are parallel to the Rules of State Government which have been read down by the Supreme Court, being held in violation 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 work charge 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 work charge services. Thus, the matter is squarely covered by the law settled in case of Prem Singh (Supra)."
Since pensionary benefits of petitioner are 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 17.03.2023 passed in Writ-A No.890 of 2022, shall also be made available to the present petitioner.
Thus, the writ petition is allowed.
Respondent no.2-Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad is directed to ensure regular payment of pensionary and other benefits to the petitioner under the Rules of 2011, treating his entire service to be performed as regular employees of the Development Authority within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.
Order Date :- 3.4.2023
Arjun/-
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
