Allahabad High Court
Rahul Dixit vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 22 December, 2023
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:241846
Reserved on 25.07.2023
Delivered on 22.12.2023
Court No. - 52
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 306 of 2023
Applicant :- Rahul Dixit
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Nath Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Om
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Jitendra Nath Sharma, learned counsel for applicant/petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent.
2. The instant review petition has been preferred for seeking review of the judgment and order dated 17.05.2023 passed by this Court in Writ A No.5006 of 2023 (Rahul Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and others) on the basis of Uday Pratap Thakur Vs. State of Bihar [2023 (0) Supreme (SC) 429].
3. The grounds for seeking review of the order dated 17.5.2023 was broadly on the basis that the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court was related to a work charged employee whose services were governed with Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules 2013 of the State of Bihar and the applicant/petitioner has never been appointed in any work charged establishment, rather the applicant was appointed on temporary vacant post of Typist after due selection as per provisions of United Provinces Public Service Commission Staff (Condition of Service) Regulations, 1942, since the judgment dated 17.05.2023 delivered beyond the pleadings of counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 by way of following the judgment passed in the case of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra) which is contrary to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No.1 of 2021) and as such, applicant/petitioner is entitled for his post retiral benefits such as pension etc. on his total length of service as prayed in the clause ii of the prayer mentioned in the writ petition who rendered his services over the post of Typist continuously since 14.06.1989 to 30.04.2020 treating the adhoc services before regularization may also be treated as qualifying service as per the provisions of U.P. Act No.1 of 2021.
4. After rescrutiny of the pleadings appended along with petition, it is crystal clear that the services of petitioner were regularized vide order dated 14.08.2012 and after rendering less than eight years of service, he retired on 30.04.2020, meaning thereby the total length of service rendered as regularized employee by petitioner, was less than ten years enabling for pensionary benefits.
5. For seeking entitlement of pensionary benefits and post retiral dues being the permanent employee has been sought through the petition preferred by applicant and the same was decided in terms of ratio and decidendi of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra).
6. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for applicant placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others [2019 (10) SCC 516] which was followed by several other judgments rendered by coordinate Benched of this Court also but grievance of applicant has been decided in terms of the subsequent judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra), wherein the ratio and decidendi applied over the applicant for extending the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits by way of treating the services rendered as an adhoc employee as decided in the case of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra) has been considered.
7. The stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant/petitioner cannot be accepted in terms of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gregory Patrao Vs. Manglore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 830), wherein ratio of the judgment defines that subsequent Supreme Court's decisions are binding on High Courts. It is crystal clear that the judgment of Prem Singh (supra) with regard to extension of pensionary benefits has been rendered in the year 2019 but the judgment of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra) has been rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the year 2023 and as such, the extension of pensionary benefits to the employees whose services are lesser than ten years but in any case, if they have already rendered services as adhoc or temporary employees before their regularization, the part of service before regularization can be taken up for enabling them under the period pensionary benefits.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, review petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.12.2023
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava, J.)
