Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Smt. Sheela Verma W/O Late Sri Ram Uchhah ... 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 DEFECTIVE No. - 717 of 2023
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Respondent :- Smt. Sheela Verma W/O Late Sri Ram Uchhah Ram
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.,S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
(Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application)
Delay in filing of the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay in filing of the appeal is, therefore, condoned.
Delay condonation application is, accordingly, allowed.
(Order on Appeal)
This appeal is directed by the State challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.5.2023 in Writ-A No. 34928 of 2017.
Facts of the case, as are not in issue, are that the husband of the respondent-petitioner was initially appointed in 1969 as Seasonal Collection Amin. He was then made a temporary Collection Amin in 1981. Services of the employee was regularized on 2.5.2003 and he ultimately attained the age of superannuation on 30th June, 2006. It is also on record that though the order of regularization was set aside later by the authorities but such subsequent order of the District Magistrate, dated 3.8.2003, came to be quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 59738 of 2005. As a consequence the husband of the respondent-petitioner continued to work till he attained the age of superannuation. The employee also died in the year 2009. A claim for family pension was raised by the widow and a direction was issued by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6545 of 2014 for consideration of such claim. The representation, however, was rejected on the ground that the period of working as a regular employee was less than 10 years and, therefore, having not completed qualifying service, the deceased employee was not entitled to pension, nor was the widow entitled to family pension. It is this order of the competent authority which came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the working of the employee was in temporary capacity since 1981. Learned Single Judge has also taken note of the order passed by the authority as per which the substantive working of the employee was for a period below 10 years. Learned Single Judge has relied upon Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"3(8) "Qualifying service" means service which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Civil Service Regulations:
Provided that continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interrup-tion by confirmation in the same or any other post except-
(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment;
(ii) periods of service in a work-charged establishment, and
(iii) periods of service in a post, paid from contingencies, shall also count as qualifying service.
Note. If service rendered in a non-pensionable establishment, work-charged establishment or in a post paid from contingencies falls between two periods of temporary service in a pensionable establishment or between a period of temporary service and permanent service in a pensionable establishment, it will not constitute an interruption of service."
Relying upon the above provision, the learned Single Judge has observed that the temporary period of working prior to 2003 is also liable to be counted towards qualifying service of the deceased employee. Parity has also been granted to the respondent with another employee namely Ramanand Chaubey, who too, was regularized alongwith the husband of the respondent-petitioner on 2.5.2003. Ramanand Chaubey had retired in 2011 but benefits of pension has been granted to him treating his initial appointment to have made in 1982. Learned Single Judge, therefore, has opined that since the initial engagement of the husband of the respondent was since 1981, therefore, the period between 1981 to 2003 was liable to have been counted towards qualifying service for the purposes of grant of pensionary benefits to the respondent-petitioner.
Although learned State Counsel submits that the view taken by learned Single Judge is erroneous, but no error in the judgment of learned Single Judge could be pointed out either on facts or in law.
The contention advanced by State Counsel that the period of work from 1981 to 2003 could not have been counted, as working was in Seasonal Establishment. This argument is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, the period of working of husband of the respondent from 1981 was as a temporary employee and not as Seasonal Employee. This is particularly so as the nature of appointment offered to husband of the respondent was identical to that of Ramanand Chaubey to whom the benefits of Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 has been granted for computation of qualifying service. The engagement of husband of the respondent as temporary employee was from 1981 whereas Ramanand Chaubey was appointed in such capacity in 1982.
We find that the learned Single Judge has correctly applied Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and has rightly granted parity in the matter of grant of pensionary benefits to respondent-petitioner relying upon the claim of Ramanand Chaubey, who too, was regularized by the order of the same date.
The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2023
Ranjeet Sahu
