Allahabad High Court
Shiv Murti Yadav Alias Shiv Murat vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2200 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shiv Murti Yadav Alias Shiv Murat
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Hanumant Lal Yadav
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 11.2.2020 whereby claim of the petitioner with regard to computation of the period of service rendered by him prior to his regularization on work charge basis and payment of his retiral dues is rejected on the ground that the State Government has filed a review application before the Supreme Court in Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (2019) 10 SCC 516. The said review application is already rejected.
The petitioner was appointed on a Class-IV post in the year 1985 in Public Works Department and thereafter he was engaged as work charge employee on 1.3.1988 and on 28.2.1989 order was passed providing him all benefits like a regular employee. He was regularized by order dated 1.3.2011 and after attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired on 31.3.2018.
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 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. Thus, the impugned order cannot stand as the petitioner is held entitled for counting of services rendered by him prior to his regularization, subject to verification of dates given by the petitioner by the department.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.202020 is set aside. However, petitioner shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only and payment shall be made to the petitioner expeditiously.
.
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
Order Date :- 3.3.2023
Sachin
