Allahabad High Court
Zila Gram Vikas Abhikaran Seva ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 19 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:35044
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3734 of 2023
Petitioner :- Zila Gram Vikas Abhikaran Seva Nivrat Karamchari Kalyan Samiti Thru Secy Ashok Kumar Singh And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Dept. U.P. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Danish,Mohd. Mansoor
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
2. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the State Government rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of pension and other post retirement benefits at par with the the Government employees.
Further prayer has been made for a writ of Mandamus/direction to the State Government to pay all pension and other post retiral dues to the members of the petitioners-Society as are available to the State Government employees substantially appointed prior to 01.04.2005.
2. Petitioner-Society-Zila Gram Vikas Abhikaran Seva Nivrat Karamchari Kalyan Samiti (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') is a registered society under Society Registration Act, 1960. It is said that its registration is renewed up to 04.08.2024. The Society comprises of the members and legal heirs, who had retired from different posts from various District Rural Development Agencies (hereinafter referred to as 'DRDA') in the State of U.P.
3. The DRDA was visualized by the Government of India as a specialized and professional agency capable of executing the Anti Poverty Programmes of Ministry of Rural Development, and effectively implementing these programmes for the purposes of poverty eradication in the rural areas of the India. The DRDAs function under chairmanship of Chairman of Zila Parishad and in absence of Zila Parishad, it would function under the District Magistrate/Dy Commissioner, as the case may be.
4. The DRDA is a registered society under Society Registration Act, 1960. Funding of the DRDA is done, 75% by the Central Government and 25% by the State Government.
5. Service conditions of the employees of the DRDA are governed by the set of Government Orders issued from time to time. Thus, employees of the DRDA are employees of the Society registered under Society Registration Act though they may be under overall control of Zila Panchayat or District Magistrate, as the case may be.
6. Government Order dated 17.03.1994 was issued in respect of inter se seniority of the employees of the DRDA wherein it was provided that the seniority of the employees of the DRDA should be determined as per the provisions of U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991.
7. On 18.07.2016, the State Government issued a Government Order giving an option to the employees of the DRDA for absorption in Rural Development Department of the State Government. Said Government Order has specifically provided that after absorption, employees who had opted for absorption shall be treated to be on Deputation in the DRDA. This cadre of the employees of the DRDA would be treated as dying cadre, however, they would not be entitled to Old Pension Scheme, they would be entitled to New Pension Scheme, which came into effect from 01.04.2005. This Government Order has not been challenged in the present writ petition.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Full Bench of this Court in the case of Writ Petition No.14930(SS) of 2017: Km Kalyani Mehrotra vs State of U.P. & Ors has opined that provisions of The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1974') would be applicable in respect of employees of the DRDA as per the Government Order dated 17.03.1994, as in the said Government Order it is provided that the matters, which are not covered by the said Government Order, would be governed by the service rules applicable to the Government servants. He, therefore, submits that since the pension is not provided in the Government Order of 1994, therefore, employees of the Society are entitled to be given pension after they demitted the office.
9. On the other hand, Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that admittedly, the employees of the Society are erstwhile employees of the DRDA. They are not government servants. Their service conditions are governed by a set of Government Orders issued from time to time. Even Full Bench has held that by no stretch of imagination employees of the DRDA can be treated to be the Government employees. Question before the Full Bench was only in respect of applicability of Rules, 1974 in respect of employees of the DRDA and, therefore, judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has no applicability.
10. Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further submits that employees of the DRDA were given an option for absorption vide order dated 18.07.2016 (Annexure-15). Those employees who opted for absorption became the Government servants and would be governed by the rules and regulations applicable to a government servant. Employees who did not opt or who demitted office or died before issuance of the Government Order dated 18.07.2016, cannot be treated to be a government servant, therefore, claim of the employees of the Society that they should be treated as government servants, and pension and other benefit, as admissible to a government servant, should be paid to them, have no basis, therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.
11. I have considered the submissions.
12. Appointments of the employees of the Society were in a society though under the control of the Government. If a society is under the control of the Government, employees of that society cannot be treated to be a Government servant. In appointment orders of the employees of the Society, nowhere it was mentioned that their services would be governed by the service rules as applicable to a government servant. Their service conditions are governed by a set of government orders issued from time to time. Judgment in the case of Kalyani Mehrotra (supra) had considered two issues which are referred to the Full Bench by learned Single Judge are as under:-
"Question No.1 : In view of the provisions of Government Order dated 17.03.1994, particularly clause 2(9), the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 would be applicable upon employees of the District Rural Development Agency:
Question No.2 : The judgment of Division Bench in Ajeet Kumar Shahi (Supra) having been passed in ignorance of Government Order dated 17.03.1994 is held not to be a good law and is, therefore, overruled."
13. There was no issue before the Full Bench that whether the employees of the DRDA were Government servant or not. Even otherwise in Para 54 of the said judgment in the case of Kalyani Mehrotra (supra), it has been specifically held that extending the benefits of beneficial legislation under Rules, 1974 to the employees of the DRDA, by no stretch of imagination, would confer status of government employee on them.
14. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any substance in the writ petition inasmuch as employees of the Society are not government servants, therefore, they cannot claim benefit of pension and other retiral benefits, which are admissible to the government servants. Only after absorption, employees of the DRDA had become the government servants and prior to said absorption, they were employees of the society i.e. DRDA.
15. In view thereof, I find no merit in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 19.5.2023/prateek
