Allahabad High Court
Tirath Raj Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 5 April, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2653 of 2023
Petitioner :- Tirath Raj Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Education And Research, Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hanumant Lal Yadav,Shailendra Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Singh,Satyanshu Ojha
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 5. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Satyanshu Ojha, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 5 is taken on record.
2. Present petition is filed by the petitioners for a mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of post retiral dues and pension w.e.f. date of their initial appointment.
3. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed on the Class-IV post as a daily wager in October 1987 and got regularized on 27.02.2009 and retired on 30.04.2022 after attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner no. 2 was appointed on the Class-IV post as a daily wager in February 1984 and got regularized on 24.05.2005 and retired on 31.03.2019, petitioner no. 3 was appointed on the Class-IV post as a daily wager in 1980 and got regularized on 25.03.2005 and retired on 31.05.2021, petitioner no. 4 was appointed on the Class-IV post as a daily wager in March 1990 and got regularized on 27.02.2009 and retired on 30.04.2021 and petitioner no. 5 was appointed on the Class-IV post as a daily wager in December 1985 and got regularized on 27.02.2009 and retired on 31.01.2020.
4. Similar controversy has already been adjudicated by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 17.02.2023 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 daily wager has been dealt with in detail by this Court. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads:
"....14. It is settled since long that daily wager employees are entitled to pensionary benefits counting their services from the date of their initial appointment and not from the date of their regularization. Suffice would be to refer to the judgment in cases of Hari Shankar Asopa vs. State of U.P. and another, 1989(1) UPLBEC 501; Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs. Union of India and others, 1996 (7) SCC 113; and Prem Singh (supra). In fact earlier they were covered by Rule 2 of U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and other Civil Services Regulations.
15. Now learned Standing Counsel submits that in view of Section 2 of the Act of 2021, since petitioners were not appointed on a temporary or permanent post initially, therefore, benefit of said services cannot be granted to them.
16. The said aspect of the matter is already discussed above at length. Section 2 of the Act of 2021 is already read down and it is held that the word 'post' used in Section 2 of the Act of 2021, be it temporary or permanent, has to be read down as 'services rendered by a government employee, be it of temporary or permanent nature'.
17. In view thereof, the petitioners are also covered by the aforesaid interpretation of Section 2 of the Act of 2021 as given in the present judgment. Orders impugned in different writ petitions on the grounds stated above are covered by the earlier judgments as well as by findings given above in this judgment and, hence, petitioners are held to be entitled for counting of their services rendered as daily wagers for pensionary benefits. All impugned orders are set aside.
......
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."
5. Since grievance of the petitioners 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 17.02.2023 shall also be made available to the present petitioners in the same terms.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, subject to the verification of dates given by the petitioners by the department, petitioners shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only.
Order Date :- 5.4.2023
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
