Allahabad High Court
Gopal Ji Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 September, 2023
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179244 Reserved on 16.05.2023
Delivered on 18.09.2023
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7105 of 2023
Petitioner :- Gopal Ji Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Kumar Dwivedi,Pankaj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by respondent no.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate/Appointing Authority, Sikandarpur, District Ballia by which he has rejected the representation of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits.
3. The petitioner was engaged as Seasonal Collection Peon on 23.10.1990 on ad-hoc basis. Thereafter, his services was regularised on the post of Collection Peon by order dated 01.12.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikandarpur, Ballia. The petitioner was paid regular pays scales and his pay scales was also revised from time to time. It is further stated that petitioner had continuously worked as Collection Peon for about 32 years w.e.f 24.10.1990 to 30.11.2011 on ad-hoc basis and from 01.12.2011 to 31.08.2022 as regular employee without any break and has rendered satisfactory service to the department. The petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2022.
4. After retirement, the petitioner submitted a representation on 07.11.2022 as well as reminder dated 21.11.2022 before the respondent no.3-District Magistrate, Ballia for grant of pensionary benefits. When respondent-authority did not pay any heed to the representation of the petitioner, he preferred Writ-A No.894 of 2023 which was disposed off by this Court by order dated 15.02.2023 directing the respondent no.3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner.
5. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, respondent no.4 considered the representation of petitioner and rejected the same by order dated 20.03.2023, which is impugned in the present petition.
6. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that action of respondent no.4 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. It is contended that services of the petitioner have been regularised in accordance with rules framed under Uttar Pradesh Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 amended by Uttar Pradesh Collection Peon Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016.
7. It is further contended that petitioner has rendered more than 32 years as Seasonal Collection Peon and has been extended all the benefits i.e regular pay scales and revision of pay scales which were given to regular Collection Peon, therefore, ignoring the said period for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefit is arbitrary and discriminatory and is in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel would contend that engagement of petitioner as Seasonal Collection Peon was purely temporary and therefore, he is not entitled to pensionary benefit. It is contended that engagement of petitioner as Seasonal Collection Peon is only for limited period after which his engagement came to an end and thereafter, he was engaged as per the need and thus, services rendered by him as Seasonal Collection Peon is not liable to be added for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits.
9. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
10. The facts as emanate from the records are that petitioner was engaged as Seasonal Collection Peon on 23.10.1990 and thereafter, his services was regularised on the post of Collection Peon 01.12.2011.
11. This Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Prabhat Kamal passed in Special Appeal No.475 of 2020 preferred by the State of U.P. has refused to quash the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who allowed the writ petition of similarly situated employee, by judgement dated 12.07.2021 for granting pensionary benefits. Relevant extract of the order dated 12.07.2021 is reproduced herein below:-
"It is not in dispute that petitioner/non-appellant was engaged as Seasonal Collection Peon on 20th February, 1976. He continued to work with the respondents till his regularisation on 31st July, 2010. Petitioner/non-appellant then retired from service on 31st March, 2012. Since he was regularised in service prior to retirement, he became entitled for the retiral benefits in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Board of Revenue and others Vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006 (62) ALR 839 decided the same controversy. It was held that once an employee is regularised in service his entire past services would be counted for the determination of necessary benefits. It is irrespective of initial appointment on temporary basis.
Taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in Prasidh Narayan (supra) and relied upon by the learned Single Judge, we find no reason to cause interference in the appeal. More so, the same issue was decided by this Court in the appeal bearing Special Appeal Defective No. 156 of 2021 (State of U.P. and 4 others Vs. Narayan Singh Sharma) dated 19th February, 2021.
In light of the aforesaid, this appeal fails and is dismissed."
12. Further, the controversy in hand is also concluded by this Court in the case of Ishwar Chand Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another in Writ-A No.4344 of 2023 decided on 18.09.2023.
13. In such view of the fact, the present writ petition is also allowed in terms of the judgement of Ishwar Chand Sharma (supra) and impugned order dated 20.03.2023 passed by respondent no.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate/Appointing Authority, Sikandarpur, District Ballia is set aside. The respondent-State is directed to compute pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner after taking into account his entire service including the service rendered by him as Seasonal Collection Peon. The amount payable to the petitioner shall be computed within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date:-18.9.2023
Sattyarth
