Lalmani Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6210 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8648 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Lalmani Yadav And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agri. Marketing And Agri. Foreign Trade Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Present writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 whereby the respondents have denied the service benefits for the purpose of pension, Gratuity, and other retiral benefits. The sole reason for refusing the benefit of pension to the petitioners in the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 is that as per Civil Services Regulation 361 and 368 they are not entitled for the same.

The petitioner nos.1 and 2 were appointed on the post of Subordinate Agriculture Marketing Inspector on adhoc basis on 03.10.1989 and 03.06.1991 respectively and their services were regularized on 31.12.2004. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 retired on 31.05.2021 and 31.03.2021 respectively.

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 adhoc employees has been dealt with in detail by this Court. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads:

"..19. The very initial appointment letters show that petitioners were appointed against substantive posts on adhoc basis. Since their appointment is against a substantive post, hence, they are squarely covered even by Section 2 of the Act of 2021 as it stands. Further, in view of interpretation as given above to Section 2 of the Act of 2021 and it is held that the services performed in temporary or permanent nature need to be counted for pensionary purposes, 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 all the petitioners are are entitled for counting of services rendered by them as ad-hoc employees for pensionary purposes.

In view of above, all the 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 petitioners 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 petitioners in the same terms.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 is set aside. However, petitioners shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only. Payment shall be made to petitioners expeditiously.

.

[Vivek Chaudhary J.]

Order Date :- 27.2.2023

-Amit K-