Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2099 (ALL)

PREM CHAND SINGHAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-07-19

A.P.SAHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Siddharth Nandan learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.D. Ojha holding brief of Sri V.C. Dixit for the respondent State Road Transport Corporation and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner has come up against the order dated 12th August, 2008 contending that the petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had applied for conversion and not for fresh appointment after the constitution of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. 3. It is submitted that the request of the petitioner is on record dated 17.11.1979 and the same was wrongly construed while issuing the letter of appointment which indicates that the petitioner was given a fresh appointment. It is submitted that immediately thereafter the petitioner had represented the matter before the Regional Manager vide request dated 27.5.1980, copy whereof is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 4. It is urged in Paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit that such representations had not been received in the office. The petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition and the same was disposed of on 13th May, 2008 directing the authority to consider his representations and pass an appropriate order. 5. It is to be noted that the petitioner retired from his services on 30.11.2003. The petitioner contends that on account of non-consideration of his grievances the petitioner is suffering a continuous pecuniary loss. Sri Nandan further pointed out that during the pendency of this request a letter was written by the Regional Manager on 24th January, 2004, copy whereof is Annexure-8 to the Manager Pensions duly indicating that the petitioner was entitled for the pensionary benefits as claimed by him. It also mentions that the perusal of the service records indicates that the petitioner had been virtually offered conversion and not fresh appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that these representations were moved in a manner that did not inspire confidence and as a matter of fact that they were not received in the office record. He further submits that the impugned order records clear reasons for not considering the claim of the petitioner and also that his claim is distinguishable from the case of Nem Pal Singh and Jai Pal Singh. He further submits that the impugned order records clear reasons for not considering the claim of the petitioner and also that his claim is distinguishable from the case of Nem Pal Singh and Jai Pal Singh. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the U.P.S.R.T.C. had appointed the petitioner afresh which is evident from his letter of appointment, and in the absence anything to the contrary, the impugned order does not deserve any interference. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the Government order dated 22nd June, 1995 which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition to substantiate his submissions and staked his claim. The applicability of the said Government Order would be dependent upon the facts to be found in relation to the status of the employment of the petitioner and the indications given in the letter dated 24th January, 2004. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the affidavits placed on record. 9. The document which has been filed along with the petition as Annexure-8, namely the letter of the Manager Pensions, is of the year 2004 which indicates a consideration of the claim of the petitioner. This letter dated 24th January, 2004 has been recited in Paragraph 18 of the writ petition. In response to Paragraph 18 the respondents in Paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit have stated that it is a matter of record. It is, therefore, evident that the existence of the said document on records of the respondents is undisputed. 10. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 12th August, 2008 this Court does not find any mention or consideration of the said document which is on record. The respondents having not denied the existence of the said document, in the absence of any non consideration of the relevant material which is on record, the impugned order gets vitiated. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 12th August, 2008 deserves to be set aside on this short ground and is accordingly quashed. 12. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 4 to proceed to examine the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of the aforesaid facts and pass an appropriate order within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.