Arjun Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 14066 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5683 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Arjun Lal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Salik Ram Yadav,Amol Dixit
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra,Umesh Chandra Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was appointed on muster roll basis on 21.11.1984 and his services were regularised on 03.04.2006 as Chaukidar in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Establishment under the U.P. Employees Services Rules.

It is stated that the petitioner retired on 31.12.2021 and was entitled for payment of pension and gratuity. It is stated that on 27.10.2021, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Joint Housing Commissioner, respondent no.2 herein stating that the petitioner retired from the services and the pension papers were not being forwarded for further action, however, as no action was taken the present writ petition has been filed claiming pension and the gratuity and interest thereon.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent taking a stand that as the services of the petitioner were regularised on 03.04.2006, he has not completed qualifying service so as to get the benefit of pension and gratuity.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the Rules applicable being Uttar Pradesh Employees Services Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981, qualifying service has been clearly defined under Rule (X) which made it very clear that even the services rendered as ad hoc would be counted for the purposes of calculating the qualifying services as such the stand taken by the respondent is not justified. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shashi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., wherein this Court specifically considered the issue of qualifying services as referred to in the erstwhile U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, which is paramateria to the Rule 2 (X) of 2001 Rules and held that the ad hoc services shall also be counted while calculating qualifying services for pensionery benefit along with said judgment and said rules.

I have no hesitation holding that the stand of the respondent in not counting the services of the petitioner from 12.04.2002 (the date of irregular appointment) up to 03.04.2006 (the date of regularisation) is bad in law and contrary to the Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

The writ petition is allowed and the mandamus is issued to the respondents to compute and pay pension and gratuity to the petitioner within four months from today. The petitioner shall also entitle to interest at the rate of 8% from 31.12.2021 up to payment/ realisation.

Order Date :- 3.5.2023

akverma