Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3330 (ALL)

Ishwardeen v. State of U. P.

2014-11-10

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2014
JUDGMENT B. Amit Sthalekar, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29.8.2014 whereby his claim for pension, gratuity and leave encashment and other retiral benefits has been rejected on the ground that he had not completed ten years of qualifying service on the post of Chaukidar. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Work Charge Employee in 1984 on the post of Chaukidar in the P.W.D. and thereafter his services were regularized w.e.f. 3.6.1989 by order dated 3.6.1989, copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, he has now retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years from the post of Chaukidar on 30.6.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon some of the judgments of this Court reported in 2006 (1) ESC-611 (All) (DB), Board of Revenue and others vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyaya wherein this Court has held that the petitioner had been appointed on the post of Collection Peon in 1962 on temporary basis and was continued till his retirement on 31.7.1999 and had put in 37 years of service, therefore, he was entitled for pension and other retiral dues and the same cannot be denied. 4. Similar controversy came up before the learned Single Judge in the case of Mohd. Mustafa vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010(1) ADJ 329 (All) (LB) wherein also the petitioner had put in 23 years of service including 9 years 5 months and 11 days of regular service but he had not completed ten years of regular service and that his claim for pension and other retiral benefits have been allowed and the Court had directed the respondents to consider the petitioner to have ten years of regular service and in total 23 years of service and pay him pension regularly every month from the date he has retired from service. 5. The case of Mohd. Mustafa was taken up in Special Appeal No.722 of 2009. Learned Division Bench was pleased to dismiss the Special Appeal by judgment dated 13.5.2013. Aggrieved by the judgement of the Division Bench the State of U.P. took the matter in Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.Nill of 2013 and the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the S.L.P. by order dated 17.1.2014. Learned Division Bench was pleased to dismiss the Special Appeal by judgment dated 13.5.2013. Aggrieved by the judgement of the Division Bench the State of U.P. took the matter in Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.Nill of 2013 and the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the S.L.P. by order dated 17.1.2014. Thus judgment of Single Judge in the case of Mohd. Mustafa stood confirmed. Identical matter came up before this Court in Special Appeal No.445 of 2011, Bhuneshwar Rai vs. State of U.P. and others wherein the appellant/employee had been engaged in the Work Charge Establishment as Chaukidar/Helper since 26.6.1976 and continued to work as such till 30.4.2006. The process of regularization was started in April, 2006 but before that appellant retired on 30.4.2006. 6. The Division Bench allowed the Special Appeal and directed that the appellant had put in more than ten years regular service as Work Charge Employee w.e.f. 26.3.1976 to 30.4.2006, therefore, he was entitled to benefit of pension etc. Reliance was placed by the Division Bench upon the earlier Division Bench in the case of Prasidh Narain Upadhyaya. 7. In the present case the petitioner was appointed as Work Charge Employee in 1984. His services were regularized on 3.6.1989 as would be clear from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 8. In this view of the matter, the various judgments referred to are squarely applied to the facts of the present case. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute these facts. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.8.2014 is quashed. 10. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.4, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division IV (Kumbh Mela) P.W.D. Allahabad to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension and other retiral benefits in the light of the legal position settled by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Such a decision shall be taken by the respondent no.4 within a period to two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.