Raghuveer Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 127 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Raghuveer Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 January, 2024

Author: Prakash Padia

Bench: Prakash Padia

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:567
 
Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21340 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Raghuveer Singh And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Wajid Ali
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
 

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners inter-alia with the prayers to direct the 2nd-respondent namely District Magistrate, District- Bulandshahar to compute pensionary and other retiral / terminal benefits payable to the petitioners after taking into account their entire services including the services rendered by them as seasonal collection Amin and pay the same to the petitioners, according to old pension scheme.

2. It is argued that petitioner no.1 was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in the year 1992 and subsequently his services were regularized in the year 2015. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in the year 1985 and his services were regularized in the year 2010 and petitioner no. 3 was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in the year 1991 and his services were regularized in the year 2022. It is further stated that all the petitioners have already been superannuated after attaining the age of superannuation. It is further argued that the petitioners are getting pension considering the services rendered by them after regularization though they are entitled for the benefit of the services rendered by them as Seasonal Collection Amin also.

3. In this regard, counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. Through Secretary, Lok Nirman Vibhag And 3 Others vs. Bhanu Pratap in Special Appeal No. 152 of 2021 decided on 29.09.2020. It is further argued that against the aforesaid judgment a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).10381 of 2022 (State of U.P. and others vs. Bhanu Pratap) was filed which was dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2022.

4. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioners that identical controversy has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 20443 of 2023 (Daulat Lal Yadav and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another) on 15.12.2023. The order dated 15.12.2023 reads as follows:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to his service as Seasonal Collection Peon for the purpose of qualifying service to make Old Pension Scheme to him.

3. From the pleadings it transpires that petitioners were initially appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 11.04.1984 at Tehsil Phoolpur, District Azamgarh and finally they attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2022 on the post of Collection Amin. However, the old pension benefit has not been made admissible to him by counting the previous service rendered by him as Seasonal Collection Peon in the Department.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors (2019) 10 SCC 516 followed by this Court in Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava versus State of U.P. & 4 others (Writ A No.746 of 2023) delivered on 03.07.2023 their previous service rendered as Seasonal Collection Amin liable to be considered. He has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Adarsh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ - A No. 17720 of 2023 (decided on 18.10.2023) wherein the amending Act No. 1 of 2021 has also been taken into consideration and still in that case the employee was held entitled for pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme following the law laid down in the case of Prem Singh (supra).

5. Per contra learned Standing Counsel has sought to justify the stand of the respondents in not considering the claim on the plea that amending Act No. 1 of 2021 has amended the U.P. Government Servants Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 with retrospective effect. He further submits that even if the petitioner's claim is considered for the purposes of Old Pension Scheme following the judgment of Supreme Court by this Court, petitioner's previous service can only be counted towards qualifying service in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Uday Pratap Thakur & Anr. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2023 SC 2971 and petitioners will not be entitled for any salary for the period he has rendered in the department as a daily wager.

6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to consider taking into account his service rendered since 1984 till the year 2022 for the purpose of qualifying service for pension and pass order within three months of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioners would not be entitled to any arrears of salary or encashment etc. but would be entitled to post retirement pension under the old pension scheme to be determined by respondent as directed hereinabove, provided of course, his case on facts stands concluded by the judgments of Supreme Court referred to above in this order and if petitioners are held entitled, a proper pension payment order shall be passed by the authority and consequential payment shall be made to the petitioners within a period of one month of taking decision as directed above. "

5. It is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondent that controversy involved in the present petition is absolutely identical, hence petitioners are also entitled for the same relief.

6. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the petitioners are entitled for benefit of the services rendered by them on ad-hoc basis.

7. Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the services of the petitioners were regularized as per provisions contained under U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules,1974 as amended from time to time. It further reveals that pursuance to the aforesaid rules, a judgment has been rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in AIR 2019 SC 4390. It further reveals that taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (Supra) various petitions were filed before this Court from time to time. In one of such case being Writ A No. 10116 of 2018, the judgment was delivered in favour of Suresh Chandra Pandey and Another.

9. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, Special Appeal Defective No. 564 of 2020 was filed by the State of U.P. and 2 Others which was dismissed by this Court on 29.09.2020. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12588 of 2021 was filed which was also dismissed on 23.08.2021.

10. It further reveals from perusal of the record that though for the retiral benefits, various representations were made by the petitioners before the second-respondent namely District Magistrate, District- Bulandshahar but till date no decision has been taken.

11. It is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that respondent no.2 will take a decision in the matter, expeditiously.

12. In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, the present petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioners to submit a fresh representation ventilating all their grievances before the respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, District - Bulandshahar within a period of three weeks from today along with certified copy of this order. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 2 within the time indicated hereinabove, he shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioners before him.

Order Date :- 3.1.2024

Swati