Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 446 (UTT)

CHAMAN LAL KALA v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-07-09

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2010
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsels for the respondents at length. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petitioner with a prayer of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay regular pension to the petitioner treating him to be an employee of centralized services. This prayer of the petitioner is being opposed by the respondents, i.e. the State of Uttarakhand as well as the “Garhwal Jal Sansthan”. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Tax Collector in Nagar Palika, Dehradun in the year 1951 and later promoted as a clerk in the year 1955, where he was again promoted to the post of Tax Inspector in the year 1968. He continued to be an employee of Nagar Palika, Dehradun till the year 1975 when on 2.10.1975 the petitioner stood transferred from Nagar Palika, Dehradun to another body known as “Garhwal Jal Sansthan” as a Tax Inspector. This transfer and the consequent absorption of the petitioner in the “Jal Sansthan” was as per the provisions of the new statute known as U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Inter alia, as per the above statute two new local bodies, known as the Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan were created in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. Consequent to his transfer and absorption in the Jal Sansthan, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Tax Superintendent and ultimately reached the age of superannuation on 31.3.1991. 4. Section 38(1) of the Act by which the services of the petitioner stood transferred from “Nagar Palika” to “Jal Sansthan” reads as under:- “38. Transfer of employees of Jal Sansthan. 4. Section 38(1) of the Act by which the services of the petitioner stood transferred from “Nagar Palika” to “Jal Sansthan” reads as under:- “38. Transfer of employees of Jal Sansthan. – (1) Save as otherwise provided in this section, every person (excluding a member of a service created under [Section 27-A of this Act,] Section 69-B of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, and Section 112-A of the [Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959]) who was employed exclusively in connection with water supply or sewerage services or sewage works or sewage farms under the local body for the local areas of which a Jal Sansthan has been constituted shall, on and from the said date, become an employee of the Jal Sansthan and shall hold his office or service therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same other terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other matters as he would have held the same on the said date if the aforesaid water supply and sewerage Sansthan, and shall continue to do so until his employment in the Jal Sansthan is terminated or until his remuneration or other terms and conditions of service are revised or altered by the Jal Sansthan under or in pursuance of any law or in accordance with any provision which for the time being governs his service: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any such employee who, by notice in writing given to the State Government within such time as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify, intimates his intention of not becoming an employee of the Jal Sansthan: Provided further that the services of any employee referred to in the proceeding proviso under the local body, shall stand terminated on account of abolition of the post held by him and he shall be entitled from that local body to compensation equivalent – (a) in the case of a permanent employee, to three months’ remuneration; (b) in the case of a temporary employee, to one month’s remuneration” 5. The relevant portion of Section 38(1) of the Act clearly states that an employee “on and from the said date, become an employee of the Jal Sansthan and shall hold his office or service therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same other terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other matters as he would have held the same on the said date if the aforesaid water supply and sewerage services, sewage works and sewage farms had not been transferred to and vested in the Jal Sansthan, and shall continue to do so until his employment in the Jal Sansthan is terminated or until his remuneration or other terms and conditions of service are revised or altered by the Jal Sansthan under or in pursuance of any law or in accordance with any provisions which for the time being governs his service”. At the relevant time i.e. when the petitioner was transferred from “Nagar Palika” to “Jal Sansthan” as a Tax Inspector, the Tax Inspector was not a centralized service. Therefore, the petitioner was not transferred to “Jal Sansthan” on a cadre of centralized service. In fact, till the petitioner reached the age of superannuation in “Jal Sansthan”, the post which he was holding i.e. the post of Assistant Tax Superintendent was also not a centralized post. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of centralised service in any manner. 6. The respondents in the counter affidavit have apprised this Court that while the petitioner was in service in “Nagar Palika”, it was a non-pensionary post. It was consequent to the transfer of the petitioner from “Nagar Palika” to “Jal Sansthan” that certain pensionary reliefs had been granted to the petitioner and similarly situated persons in “Nagar Palika” as well as “Jal Sansthan”. This pension which the petitioner is entitled to and is presently getting cannot be equated to the pension which is being drawn by the employee of centralized services. The contentions advanced by the respondents appear to be correct. This pension which the petitioner is entitled to and is presently getting cannot be equated to the pension which is being drawn by the employee of centralized services. The contentions advanced by the respondents appear to be correct. Moreover, this Court in a similar matter also relating to the pensionary benefit of such transferred employee from “Nagar Palika” to “Jal Sansthan” in Review petition No. 254 of 2006 in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 109 of 2002 Surendra Singh Yogi v. Secretary, Drinking Water, Secretariate, Dehradun and another, decided on 28.2.2007 has already held that if a person was not a member of the centralized services at the time of his transfer, he cannot be given the benefits of centralised services. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 8. No order as to costs.