Raj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 26719 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191058
 
Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12831 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. Counter affidavit filed by learned standing counsel today in the Court is taken on record.

2. Heard Smt. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed questioning order dated 08.02.2023 passed by respondent no.2 (District Magistrate/Collector, Saharanpur) and further mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to count past service of the petitioner for grant of pension and other post retiral dues to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Collection Peon on 01.11.1980 in Tehsil Deoband, District Saharanpur and worked continuously with some artificial breaks. In support of his contention, he has also placed experience certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Deoband, District Saharanpur. Further the services of the petitioner was regularised vide proceedings dated 23.07.2019 of the third respondent. Subsequently, he has retired on 30.09.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation.

5. After his retirement, the petitioner made a representation on 12.09.2022 before the second respondent, (District Magistrate/Collector, Saharanpur) and one more representation on 12.10.2022 for payment of pension and other post retiral benefits. After persuasion, the District Magistrate/Collector, Saharanpur has rejected the claim of the petitioner by proceedings dated 08.02.2023 on the ground that his services rendered prior to regularisation are not entitled to be counted for their pensionary benefits.

6. Assailing the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has joined in the service as Seasonal Collection Peon on 01.11.1980 and since then he is discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction of the superiors except some artificial breaks. He has worked more than three decades. Considering his length of service, only the respondents have regularised his service. The reqularisation order also clearly discloses that his services were regularised, considering the past service, hence at any rate he is not entitled for pensionary benefits by taking their past service in to account.

8. Further, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon'ble Court in Writ-A No.5817 of 2020 Kaushal Kishore Chaubey And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others wherein the identical issue has been cropped up and the same is decided by this Court with the following observations :-

"20. In the case of Gulaichi Devi (supra), after analyzing the various pronouncements, the Court has held that a temporary employee appointed on the various establishment of the Government is entitled to the pension under Fundamental Rules, 1956.

21. Undisputedly, the fact in the instant case is that the petitioners have been engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin between the year 1976 to 1990 and their services have been regularized between the years 2011 to 2016 and they have been extended all the benefits like the revision of pay with the approval of the competent authority as paid to the regular Collection Amin. The duties which have been discharged by the petitioners while working as Seasonal Collection Amin was similar to the duties discharged by regular Collection Amin, and on continuance and satisfactory services rendered by them as Seasonal Collection Amin, they have been regularized in service as per Rules. Thus, from the facts narrated above, it is evident that though the nomenclature and nature of appointment to the petitioners were Seasonal Collection Amin, but as a matter of fact, they meet all the requirements to be treated as temporary employees as held by the Apex Court in the case of A.P. Srivastava Vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 3 UPLBEC 1842 (Supplement), [ See also Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (4) ADJ 709, Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (8) ADJ 371, Kedar Ra-I Vs. State of U.P., 2008 ILR (All) 659, Ram Sajiwan Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No.3031 (S/S) of 2004 (decided on 12 August 2009), Kanti Devi Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (10) AJD 18, Kishan Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (9) ADJ 516 & Awadh Bihari Shukla Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (6) ADJ 186 ].

23. Further, it is also pertinent to mention that the petitioners have worked for decades as Seasonal Collection Amin discharging the same duty which has been discharged by the regular Collection Amin and have been extended same benefits which have been extended to the regular Collection Amin, therefore, in such factual scenario denying the petitioners the benefit of pension and other benefits which have been extended to Regular Collection Amin would not only be arbitrary but against the concept of the right to equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

24. In view of the above discussion and given the law elucidated by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in various pronouncements referred above, the services rendered by the petitioners as Seasonal Collection Amin cannot be ignored for extending the benefits of pension and other retiral benefits to them on the pretext that their appointment is to be treated from the date of regularization and not from the date of their engagement as work charged employee.

25. Consequently,the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent to compute pensionary benefit payable to the petitioners after taking into account their entire service including the service rendered by them as Seasonal Collection Amin. The amount payable to the petitioners shall be computed within three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court, and the same shall be paid within the next two months. The respondents shall also continue to pay current pensionary benefits as and when the same fell due."

9. In view of the above observations made by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner is also entitled for the pensionary benefits considering the service rendered from 1980.

10. After notice Shi Rahul Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil-Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur has filed counter affidavit. They have not disputed about the appointment of the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Peon as per the provisions of Section 19 of U.P. Collection Manual 01.11.1980 and worked there from time to time on seasonal basis to assist in collection of revenue and further asserted that the services of the petitioner were regularised by taking the earlier past service and regularised his services by proceedings dated 23.07.2019 and subsequently retired on attaining the age of 60 years, i.e., on 30.09.2022. From the date of regularisation i.e., 23.07.2019 till his retirement he worked only 3 years 2 months 8 days as a regular employee.

11. Further it is stated that the services of Seasonal Collection Amins/Seasonal Collection Peons have been regularised in pursuance of Government Order dated 14.06.2017 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Anubhag-7, Government of U.P., Lucknow wherein it has specifically stated that the Seasonal Collection Amins/Seasonal Collection Peons who have been regularised in service, shall be deemed to have been in regular service from date of their actual regularization, and they shall not be entitled to claim inclusion of their past services as Seasonal Collection Amins/Seasonal Collection Peons in the regular establishment.

12. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State based on the averments made in the counter affidavit has submitted that as per the Government Order dated 14.06.2017 the services of the petitioner has to be considered and has to be counted from the date of regularisation and he is not entitled for pensionary benefits as he has only 3 years 2 months and 8 days service as regular employee hence he is not entitled for pensionary benefits and accordingly the District Magistrate/ District Collector, Saharanpur, respondent no.2 has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 08.02.2023.

13. Considering the submissions made above and perusal of record, though the learned standing counsel has opposed based on the Government memo dated 14.06.2017 stating that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the past service before the reqularisation but he has not disputed about the disposal of the writ petition by the Coordinate Bench in Writ -A No. 5817 of 2020 and also the grant of relief in favour of the identical persons. Nothing has been brought on record by either parties with regard to filing any appeal against the order passed in Writ-A No.5817 of 2020 (supra).

14. In the light of the submissions and perusal of record as the issue has already been decided by the aforesaid judgment, the present writ petition also disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 in granting same relief which was granted in the aforesaid matter.

15. The writ petition thus is disposed of.

(Donadi Ramesh, J.)

Order Date :- 3.10.2023

VS