Allahabad High Court
Fakire Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 13 February, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4505 of 2016
Petitioner :- Fakire Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Revenue Civil Sectt.Lko.And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:
"(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give the benefit of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court rendered in case of Board of Revenue and others vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay (2006) 1 ESC 611 (All.) (DB) as well as in the case of Abdul Haq vs. State of U.P. and others, passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.2569 (S/S) of 2003 dated 25.09.2013, contained as Annexure nos.10 and 11 and pay all the retiral dues to the Petitioner;
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party to treat the petitioner as having been regularised with effect from date that on 20.11.2004 when his juniors namely Pyare Lal had been regularised on the post of Collection Peon and pay all the retiral dues which are being paid to his juniors namely Pyare Lal, as per the earlier pension scheme ;
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding hte opposite parties to compute the services which the petitioner has rendered as Seasonal Collection Peon and pay all the retiral dues as per the scheme which is applicable for those employee which has been appointed prior to 01.04.2005."
It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that a Selection Committee constituted for regularisation on the post of Collection Peon on 25.10.2004. Petitioner was selected but could not be appointed because his age was more than 45 years. His name was forwarded for granting relaxation to the State- Board of Revenue because the State has power of relaxation of age. He submitted that vide order dated 13.05.2005, the State Government has given relaxation so far as petitioner is concerned and the Petitioner has been given appointment on 25.06.2005. He has further submitted that it is not fault of the petitioner rather it is fault of the State who provide relaxation of age after long lapse of time. He has further submitted that person junior to him namely Pyare Lal who was appointed on 20.11.2004 from the same select list, has retired and has been given pensionary benefits as per the Old Pension Scheme. However, the Petitioner has not been paid the pensionary benefit because New Pension Scheme has come in force with effect from 01.04.2005. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in case of Mahesh Narayan and others vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ A No. 55606 of 2008 and submitted that case of the Petitioner is covered with the aforesaid judgment.
On the other hand, Shri Sanjiv Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that Petitioner has been appointed after New Pension Scheme has come into force, therefore, he is not entitled for pension and other pensionary benefits.
Be that as it may. The fact remains that the respondent no.3 has to take decision in the matter. The Petitioner is granted liberty to make a fresh representation along with certified copy of this order ventilating his grievances before the Respondent no.3 within three weeks from today and the Respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same thereafter by a reasoned and speaking order by considering the case of Mahesh Narayan (Supra) in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.2.2023
Pks
