Allahabad High Court
Raja Ram Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief ... on 28 February, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1872 of 2023
Petitioner :- Raja Ram Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Sinchai Evam Jal Sansadhan Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari
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 12.12.2022 whereby the claim of the petitioner with regard to computation of the period of service rendered by him as a daily wager followed by his appointment in work charge establishment on 26.8.1998 and payment of pension etc. is rejected.
The petitioner was appointed on 28.12.1983 as a daily wager and thereafter in work charge establishment and worked as Supervisor from 26.8.1998 and got regularized on 20.11.2006. The petitioner retired on 31.8.2020 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.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.12.2022 is hereby set aside. However, petitioner shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only as expeditiously as possible.
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
Order Date :- 28.2.2023
Arjun/-
