State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Rana Pratap Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 35771 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Rana Pratap Singh on 19 December, 2023

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?
 

 
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240199-DB
 
Court No. - 46
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 306 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- Rana Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Chandan Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Vineet Kumar Singh
 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Single judge in Writ A No.147 of 2020 (Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and two others) decided on 01.11.2022. The judgment of learned Single Judge is short and crisp and is reproduced hereinafter:-

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

The present petition has been filed stating that the petitioner has rendered more than 35 years of service as Temporary Collection Amin and he claimed his right for retiral benefits which has been denied by the department on the ground that the petitioner was the Seasonal Collection Amin.

It is argued that this issue is squarely decided by this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others (2019) 11 ADJ 121. It is stated that the Special Appeal filed against the said judgement has also been dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2020 in Special Appeal Defective No.564 of 2020 and the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12588 of 2021 against the said judgement has also been dismissed.

In view of the fact that the issue raised in the present petition is similar to the one decided by this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Pandey (supra), the present petition is allowed in terms of the said judgement i.e. in the case of Suresh Chandra Pandey (supra) with directions that the petitioner shall be paid his admissible retiral benefits within three months from the date of the communication of this order. The impugned order dated 19.10.2019 is set aside."

The aforesaid judgment is challenged by the State on the ground that facts of the present case are distinct from the case of Suresh Chandra Pandey (supra) and required consideration. It is also submitted that the facts relevant for the present controversy have either been referred to, by the learned Single Judge, nor have been dealt with with reference to the applicable law. It is also stated that detailed pleadings made before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition have not been adverted to.

We have perused the records of the present appeal, as also the background in which the controversy came to be raised before the learned Single Judge. Admitted facts of the present case would require narration at the outset.

The respondent-petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Seasonal Collection Amin in 1978. His services were neither regularized nor was he substantively appointed as Collection Amin for which Specific Rules exist known as U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974. Rule 5 of these Rules contemplates recruitment and the proviso to Rule 5(1) states that 35% of the vacancies of Collection Amin shall be filled from such Seasonal Collection Amins, who fulfill the criteria specified in the Rule. The claim of the respondent-petitioner was directed to be considered by this Court pursuant to which an order came to be passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia, rejecting the claim of the respondent-petitioner on 30th September, 2009. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No.20531 of 2010 which was disposed of on 24.11.2014. A direction was issued that in the event vacancies exist, the claim of the respondent-petitioner for regularization will also be considered.

Pursuant to such order, yet another order came to be passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia non-suiting the respondent-petitioner on 04.04.2015. This order was set aside following a previous determination made by this Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Pankaj Srivastava, reported in 2013 Volume 11 ADJ Page 473. The authorities in compliance of such directions passed yet another order on 30th October, 2015. It is the case of the appellant that this order was unsuccessfully challenged in a writ petition which has attained finality. It is thereafter that the writ petition has been filed in the year 2020, claiming pensionary benefits relying upon certain decisions of this Court. Learned Single Judge by the order under challenge has allowed the writ relying upon the judgment in the case of Suresh Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others 2019 Volume 11 ADJ Page 121.

In the facts of the case, we find that the peculiar facts of the respondent-petitioner required consideration by the learned Single Judge. This is particularly so as the claim for recruitment under the Rules of 1974 has already been rejected after returning a finding that the claim for appointment is not covered under the Rules of 1974. This order has attained finality. Facts in respect of other persons (Suresh Chandra Pandey) could not have been relied upon to grant pensionary benefits when the claim of the respondent-petitioner was not examined with reference to the applicable Rules. In the case of Suresh Chandra Pandey (supra) reliance was placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Board of Revenue and others Vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay 2006 (1) ESC 611 wherein recommendation for regularization was made but formal orders were not passed. In Para 6 of the judgment in Prasidh Narain (supra) this Court held that non-issuance of formal order of confirmation or regularization cannot be a ground to deny relief when entitlement to regularization and 37 years continuous working were admitted. In this case regularization has already been refused. Applicable statute for pension i.e. U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 has since been amended and the old pension scheme has been discontinued w.e.f. 01.04.2005.

The question of payment of pensionary benefit would be dependent upon the nature of right accrued to the employee concerned under the Rules. What exactly is his status and what rights he derives on the strength of the provisions of the Rules, would have to be considered and determined by the Court before any relief can be granted. It is otherwise settled that payment of pension is a right created under the statute which is dependent on the fulfillment of conditions specified therein. Applicability of the provisions of U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 as amended vide U.P. Act No.1 of 2021 for conferring pensionary benefit would also require consideration.

Since there is no consideration of facts relating to the respondent-petitioner, with reference to the relevant rules, as such the grant of benefit to the respondent-petitioner would be impermissible in law. It is otherwise contended that facts of the present case are distinct from the facts in the case relied upon by the respondent-petitioner. For the reasons narrated above, we allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 01.11.2022, passed in Writ A No.147 of 2020 (Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and two others). The writ petition is restored to its original number. Learned Single Judge is requested to examine the claim of writ petitioner afresh, in light of the observations made above with reference to the applicable provisions contained in the Service Rules. Since the respondent-petitioner has, otherwise, attained the age of superannuation, we request learned Single Judge to consider the case of the respondent-petitioner at his Lordships earliest convenience.

Order Date :- 19.12.2023

SP/-