Allahabad High Court
Deep Narayan Yadav 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. - 7506 of 2022
Petitioner :- Deep Narayan Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.01.2022 whereby the respondents have denied the benefit of service rendered by petitioner as seasonal collection amin for the purposes of pension and other post retiral benefits.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin on 26.06.1986. Petitioner was regularized in service on 01.01.2016. After attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner retired from services on 31.12.2020.
Similar controversy has already been adjudicated by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 17.2.2023 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 seasonal collection amin/peon has been dealt with in detail by this Court. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads:
"21. Law regarding counting of the period of services rendered earlier as Seasonal Collection Peon/Collection Amin for calculation of post-retiral benefits is long settled by a large number of judgments. Suffice would be to refer to the judgment a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Board of Revenue through its Chairman: The District Magistrate and UP-Zila Adhikari vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006 (5) AWC 5194 (DB). The said judgment is followed till date. Furthermore, Fundamental Rule 56 as it stood amended by the U.P. Amendment Act No. 24 of 1975 allows for retirement of a temporary employee and in clause (e) of the Fundamental Rule 56 it is provided that retiral benefits shall be made available to every employee who retires under this Rule. Even after the coming into force of the Act of 2021, since, their appointment is against a post, hence, they are squarely covered even by the original Section 2 of the Act of 2021. Further, in view of interpretation as given above to Section 2 of the Act of 2021 where it is held that the work on temporary or permanent post needs to be read as work taken from a person on a position, be it temporary or permanent, otherwise, it again would be hit by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh (supra), thus, there can be no dispute that they are entitled for pension by counting in services rendered by them as non-regular employees.
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 17.2.2023 shall also be made available to the present petitioner in the same terms.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 is set aside. However, petitioner shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only.
Order Date :- 21.2.2023
Arti/-
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
