Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 254 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Sri Ram Naresh Singh

1985-02-26

B.N.SAPRU

body1985
JUDGMENT B. N. Sapru, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the State of U. P. and others officers of the Government and is directed against the order of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal III, Lucknow dated 19-9-1979 in Claim No. 1142 (1)/III/1978 whereby the U. P. Public Services Tribunal declared that the claimants being civil servants are entitled to receive the benefits of pension and gratuity etc. at per with other employees of the State of U. P. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 12 are Tahsildars and Money Testers employed in the District Treasury and Sub-Treasury of District Varanasi. The claim petition giving rise to the instant writ petition was filed by them claiming certain benefits payable to them including pension and gratuity as were admissible to other Government servants. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal has held that the claimants are Government servants and entitled to all benefits which are payable to other employees of the Government of U. P. 3. In the case of State of U.P. v. Awadh Narain Singh, AIR 1965 SC 360 it has been held that the Tahsildars were civil servants and as such entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal the presenting officer was unable to show any provision of law under which the claimants before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal were disentitle from getting pensionary benefits. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal also noticed in its judgment that before it the only dispute was in relation to pensionary benefits. 4. The learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the provisions of the Civil Services Regulation Paragraph 350 of the Civil Services Regulation provides as follows : - "350. All establishments whether temporary or permanent, shall be deemed to be pensionable establishments : Provided that it is open to the State Government to rule that the service in any establishment does not qualify for pension." 5. In paragraph 362 of the Civil Services Regulation it is provided as follows ; "362. The service of an officer does not qualify unless he is appointed and his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. The following are examples of officers excluded from pension by this Article - (1) .......... (2) ............ (3) ............... The service of an officer does not qualify unless he is appointed and his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. The following are examples of officers excluded from pension by this Article - (1) .......... (2) ............ (3) ............... (4) Subordinates appointed by treasures on their own responsibility, e.g., Tahsildars in the province of Agra - In the case of State of U. P. v. Awadh Narain Singh (supra), referred to above, the Supreme Court has observed as follows - "The Government Treasurer is a civil servant of the State holding a specific post and he is authorised by the terms of his employment to employ Tahsildars to assist him in discharging his duties. Payment of remuneration to the Tahsildars is for services rendered in the Cashier department of the District Treasury of the State. The Tahsildars receive their remuneration directly from the State and are subject to transfer, removal and disciplinary action. Employment of Tahsildars being for the purpose of carrying out the work of the State, even though a decree of control is exercised by the Government Treasurer and the appointment is in the first instance made by the Treasurer subject to the approval of the District Officers, it must be held that the Tahsildar is entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution." 6. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court it is clear that as mentioned in paragraph 362 of the Civil Services Regulation the respondents duties and pay are regulated by the Slate and they would be entitled to pensionary benefits. 7. The learned Standing Counsel, however, relies upon clause (4) of paragraph 362 of the Civil Services Regulation and argues that Tahsildar are excluded from pensionary benefits. This paragraph of the Civil Services Regulation is out dated. It excludes Tahsildar and like officials from pensionary benefits only in the erstwhile districts of Agra. It does not exclude Tahsildar employed in other districts that comprised in the Chief Commissioners Province of Oudh. If the provision is literally applied it would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 1 am, therefore, not prepared to hold that by virtue of sub-clause (4) of Paragraph 362 of Civil Services Regulation the respondents were not entitled to pensionary benefits. 8. If the provision is literally applied it would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 1 am, therefore, not prepared to hold that by virtue of sub-clause (4) of Paragraph 362 of Civil Services Regulation the respondents were not entitled to pensionary benefits. 8. In the circumstances find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs . Petition dismissed.