Allahabad High Court
Ram Gopal Singh vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1367 of 2012
Petitioner :- Ram Gopal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed the following main relief :-
"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner of the petitoner dated 06.02.2012 and 20.12.2011 after taking into account the entire 28 years valuable service of the petitioner rendered to the Forest Department from July,1983 to the date of retirement on 30.11.2011 as a daily wager and regular Government Servant, as contained in Annexure no.1 and 9 to the writ petition.
Ii)(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.04.2012, passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Rae Bareli, the opposite party no.4 as contained in Annexure no.12 to the writ petition.
(i)(b) to issue a writ ,order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the order dated 20.04.2012 as contained in Annexure no.12 to the writ petition and they may further be commanded to grant the petitioner all pensionary benefits to the petitioner which include pension, gratuity, G.P.F., leave encashment, Group Insurance Scheme amount etc, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. after reckoning his entire service period with effect from July, 1983 to 30.11.2011 as qualifying service towards pensionary benefits.
(ii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide consequential pensionary benefits to the petitioner accrued to him on his retirement/superannuation after counting entire service period of the petitioner from July,1983 to 30.11.2011 i.e. daily wages as well as regular service."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 23.04.2012, the authority/ opposite party no.4 had stated the fact that the petitioner was regularized on 19.08.2011 and the petitioner had completed only three months service, therefore,the pensionary benefit has been denied.
It is stated by the petitioner in para 9 of the writ petition that the persons junior to the petitioner, namely, Munni Lal, Ram Kewal, Mahipat Singh, Ramesh Kumar and Mehendra Babu, who were juniors to the petitioner were regularized in the year 2002 and the right of the petitoiner has been denied. He has also placed a list of daily wagers in which petitioner stands at serial no.30 whereas the aforesaid persons who are below serial no.30 were regularized.
In para -14 in the Counter affidavit filed by the State the list of daily wager is not disputed.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is senior, therefore, he is entitled for regularization from the date when the junior were regularized and he may also be given the same benefit as given to the juniors to the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that since the petitioner has been regularized in the year 2011 i.e. at the fag end of his retirement, therefore, he is not entitled for pension.
He has further submitted that regularization orders of other juniors have been passed in the year 2002 that is why pensionary benefit were given to them whereas the petitioner has been regularized in the year 2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed in July, 1983, therefore, the entire service period should be counted for pensionary benefit. He has submitted that similar issue was placed before this Court in Writ Petition No.4476(SS) of 2004 (Rajendra Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others) against which Special Appeal No.607 of 2006 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Rajendra Nath Pandey) was filed and the same was also dismissed by this Court on 14.10.2008.
After going through the record, one thing is very clear that petitioner is senior to the persons mentioned herein above. Petitioner stands at serial no.30 whereas the all the aforesaid persons mentioned in para-9 are junior to the petitioner, therefore, petitioner is entitled for relief which has been granted to the junior on 30.09.2002.
He has further placed reliance on the judgment of Ashok Kumar Dixit and has submitted that the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2019 (10 ) SCC 516 has also been considered and the Court again passed an order dated 29.04.2020 in Writ Petition No.4319 (SS) of 2010 (Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and others) and observed that the entire period of service will be counted for pensionary benefits. Against the said order dated 29.04.2020, Special Appeal was preferred by the State in Special Appeal No.280 of 2020( State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Dixit), the same was also dismissed on 20.07.2021. Against the said order dated 20.07.2021, State has preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) NO.19758 of 2021 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11.12.2021.
The Stand is taken by learned Standing Counsel that the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 has come into force. However, the issue has been considered in Special Appeal No.97 of 2021 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Bhanu Pratap Sharma) and the Court has passed an order that initial appointment of the petitioner will be considered for pensionary benefit and the date of initial appointment cannot be ignored and the service benefit cannot be denied on the ground that regularization has been done later on, therefore, the arguments advanced by learned Standing Counsel has no force and the same is overruled.
Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the month of April, 1986 and he was not appointed in the month of July,1983. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the Certificate issued by Forest Range Officer, Lalganj, petitioner is working from the month of July,1983.
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.04.2012 passed by opposite party no.4 is quashed and the petitioner will be entitled for pensionary benefit and his past services since July, 1983 will be counted for pensionery benefit.
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
dk/
