Allahabad High Court
Ram Shanker Maurya vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 21 February, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16669 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ram Shanker Maurya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Rural Engineering Lucknow Andors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Kumar,Avdhesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.02.2019 passed by respondent no.2, order dated 14.02.2019 passed by respondent no.3 and order dated 28.02.2019 passed by respondent no.4, whereby the respondents have cancelled the G.P.F. account allotted to petitioner and directed him to submit an application for PRAN account under New Pension Scheme on the ground that the petitioner was appointed after 2005.
The petitioner was appointed under Class IV category on 22.09.1989 as a daily wager/work charge and regularization order was passed 30.01.2013 and he is still in service
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned orders the respondents have refused to count past services rendered by the petitioner as a daily wager/work charge employee and are counting his services only from the date of his regularization and, therefore, have considered him eligible only for benefits under New Pension Scheme.
Similar controversy has already been adjudicated by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 17.02.2023 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, leading one is Writ-A No.8968 of 2022, wherein issue relating to interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Act of 2021 for counting qualifying service for the purpose of pension with regard to daily wager has been dealt with in detail by this Court. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads:
"....14. It is settled since long that daily wager employees are entitled to pensionary benefits counting their services from the date of their initial appointment and not from the date of their regularization. Suffice would be to refer to the judgment in cases of Hari Shankar Asopa vs. State of U.P. and another, 1989(1) UPLBEC 501; Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs. Union of India and others, 1996 (7) SCC 113; and Prem Singh (supra). In fact earlier they were covered by Rule 2 of U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and other Civil Services Regulations.
15. Now learned Standing Counsel submits that in view of Section 2 of the Act of 2021, since petitioners were not appointed on a temporary or permanent post initially, therefore, benefit of said services cannot be granted to them.
16. The said aspect of the matter is already discussed above at length. Section 2 of the Act of 2021 is already read down and it is held that the word 'post' used in Section 2 of the Act of 2021, be it temporary or permanent, has to be read down as 'services rendered by a government employee, be it of temporary or permanent nature'.
17. In view thereof, the petitioners are also covered by the aforesaid interpretation of Section 2 of the Act of 2021 as given in the present judgment. Orders impugned in different writ petitions on the grounds stated above are covered by the earlier judgments as well as by findings given above in this judgment and, hence, petitioners are held to be entitled for counting of their services rendered as daily wagers for pensionary benefits. All impugned orders are set aside.
......
22. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, all the orders impugned in the writ petitions are passed either on the ground that they are covered by the Ordinance/Act of 2021 or they were not party in case of Prem Singh (supra) or without considering the judgment of Prem Singh (supra) and hence, the same are squarely covered by the finding given above. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot stand and are set aside. However, petitioners shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only.
23. All the writ petitions are allowed."
Since grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is similar to one which has already been adjudicated by this Court in the aforesaid case, the benefit of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.02.2023 shall also be made available to the present petitioner in the same terms.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 14.02.2019, 14.02.2019 and 28.02.2019 are hereby set aside.
Respondents are directed to count the past services rendered by the petitioner as daily wager/work charge employee and enroll them under Old Pension Scheme.
.
[Vivek Chaudhary J.]
Order Date :- 21.2.2023
-Amit K-
