Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 24 February, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1716 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Dubey
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 praying for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant pension after counting the services rendered on daily wage/work charge basis.
The petitioner was appointed in the year 1980 on the post of Godown Chaukidar on daily wage basis and thereafter he was given adhoc appointment on the post of Godown Chaukidar on 9.4.1985. The services of the petitioner were regularized as Godown Chaukidar on 4.9.2010. The petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2022 after attaining the age of superannuation.
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, after verifying the dates provided by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
However, petitioner shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only.
.
.
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
Order Date :- 24.2.2023
Arjun/-
