Allahabad High Court
Prem Narain Mishra vs M.D. U.P. Power Corporation Lko. ... on 10 February, 2023
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 3
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 247 of 2021
Applicant :- Prem Narain Mishra
Opposite Party :- M.D. U.P. Power Corporation Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nand Kishore
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard.
This is an application seeking review of the judgment dated 22.10.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 16068 (SS) of 2020 by which the petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The said judgment was challenged by the said petitioner by filing Special Appeal Defective No. 321 of 2020, which was disposed of on 09.12.2020 in the following terms:
"Heard Sri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Sri Devak Vardhan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shreeprakash Singh, Advocate, who appears for the respondents.
The delay in filing the appeal is adequately explained and is accordingly condoned.
Delay condonation application (C.M. Application No. 74928 of 2020) is accordingly allowed.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant on the ground of delay.
A bare perusal of the aforesaid order and the prayer made in the writ petition reveals that the petitioner had challenged the letter dated 19.05.2015 in the writ petition filed in the year 2020. Accordingly, in the absence of any explanation, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and latches.
The submission of the Sri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that the dispute in the writ petition relates to the pensionary benefits and apart from challenging the letter dated 19.05.2015, the basic prayer of the petitioner relates to grant of pensionary benefits to him, which is a recurring cause of action and as such the petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay or latches.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, if the petitioner-appellant is of the view that the matter relates to pensionary benefits and not simply for the quashing of the letter dated 19.05.2015, he may apply for the review of the order, under appeal, and convince the Writ Court for reviewing the order dated 22.10.2020.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of this appeal with liberty to the petitioner-appellant to move an application for review of the order dated 22.10.2020."
The Court has perused the said judgment as also the relief clause in the original writ petition bearing No. 16068 (SS) of 2020. However, the petitioner's counsel says that his services having been regularized w.e.f. 26.02.2004 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition and he having retired on 31.10.2014, he is entitled to pension based on more than 10 years of qualifying service.
Mr. Neerav Chitravansi, learned counsel for the U.P. Power Corporation has been called to assist the Court in these review proceedings. He has placed before the Court a recent judgment of this Court dated 02.02.2023 rendered in Writ A No. 2001796 of 2015. In the said judgment rendered by this Bench, it has been noticed that Contributory Provident Fund scheme has been made effective w.e.f. 01.04.2004, however, if any person had been appointed on 14.01.2000 or thereafter, then it would be applicable from the said date if such employee wanted and was willing to deposit his part of the contribution, whereupon the employer would deposit its part of the contribution. The said judgment also takes note of a decision of the Board of UPPCL dated 01.12.2001 by which earlier pension scheme was rescinded, meaning thereby the old pension scheme was not applicable to those who were appointed on or after 14.01.2000. Moreover, as far as the claim of the original petitioner counting of his services rendered on daily wages w.e.f. 01.05.1980 to 26.02.2004 is concerned, once the CPF scheme has been made applicable to all the appointees on or after 14.01.2000 and the petitioner's regular appointment is of 26.02.2004, unless this date of appointment is backdated to a date prior to 14.01.2000, no benefit of the old pension scheme which was applicable prior to passing of the resolution dated 01.12.2001 by the Board of UPPCL can be given to the petitioner. No such relief has been claimed herein.
The concept of qualifying service was applicable under the old pension scheme and it has no relevance under the CPF scheme which became effective from 14.01.2000, therefore, the review application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms as no relief can be granted to the petitioner for the reasons aforesaid.
If the petitioner wants to claim regularization of his services w.e.f. a date prior to 14.01.2000 and has valid grounds for doing so and the same is otherwise permissible, it is open for the petitioner to raise such a claim by filing a separate writ petition and in that eventuality also to seek consequential relief based thereon with regard to post retiral dues, but nothing can be done in these proceedings.
[Rajan Roy, J.]
Order Date :- 10.2.2023
Santosh/-
