Allahabad High Court
Ram Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 2 March, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3516 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ram Bahadur Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Forest Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshuman Singh Rathore
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 10.01.2022 passed by respondent no.3 whereby claim of petitioner for regularization has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as daily wager on a Class-IV post on 01.07.1984. Petitioner's services were discontinued and aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7330 (S/S) of 2000 in which this Court vide order dated 15.12.2000 allowed the petitioner to continue in service till consideration of his regularization. In terms of the said order, petitioner continued in service. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 29.05.2019. However, petitioner's regularization was still not considered. Thereafter, petitioner moved Writ Petition No.27363 (S/S) of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2021 directing the respondents to consider the representation of petitioner for regularization in accordance with judgment and order dated 29.05.2019. The representation of petitioner was not decided while petitioner was in service. The petitioner retired on 30.11.2021 after attaining the age of superannuation. Now, by the impugned order dated 10.01.2022 representation of petitioner is decided whereby the claim of petitioner for regularization is rejected on the ground that since petitioner is already retired, hence, he cannot be regularized in services.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner is retired and, hence, the only benefit he can get is pensionary benefit.
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 10.01.2022 is hereby set aside. The payment shall be made to petitioner expeditiously.
Order Date :- 2.3.2023
Arti/-
.
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
