Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3486 (ALL)

Chandra Prakash Paliwal v. State of U. P.

2016-10-19

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The petitioner was engaged as a Seasonal Clerk in the Department of Food & Civil Supplies of the State in the year 1971. He has instituted this writ proceeding for quashing of the order dated 22nd May, 2014 passed by the second respondent rejecting his claim for post retiral benefits on the ground that he was not a regular employee. 2. The essential facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged on 05th July, 1971 as a Seasonal Clerk in the Department of Food & Civil Supplies at Meerut. After some time he was appointed to the post of ad hoc Clerk by an order dated 19th April, 1982 in the office of the Regional Food Controller, Meerut in the pay scale of Rs.200-320. It appears that his appointment was temporary, hence his services were dispensed with on 31st August, 1985 by the Regional Food Controller, Meerut. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12567 of 1985 (Shri Chandra Prakash Paliwal v. The State of U.P. and others). In the said writ petition an interim order was granted on 20th August, 1985 staying the termination order. It is stated that the petitioner continued to work on the strength of the interim order. The said writ petition filed by the petitioner was finally disposed of by this Court on 11th December, 2003 and the Court observed that if the petitioner is still working and his work and conduct is good and if there is vacancy, the respondents may consider for regularisation of his services. As noted above, the petitioner continued to work and he was transferred to different places. 3. In the meanwhile the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceeding and was placed under suspension. In the said departmental proceeding he was awarded punishment of censure entry vide order dated 27th February, 2012. By another order dated 18th April, 2012 the competent authority took a decision that since the petitioner was found guilty in the departmental proceeding, he was not entitled to get any salary for the suspension period. In the meantime the petitioner reached his age of superannuation and retired on 31st December, 2011. 4. By another order dated 18th April, 2012 the competent authority took a decision that since the petitioner was found guilty in the departmental proceeding, he was not entitled to get any salary for the suspension period. In the meantime the petitioner reached his age of superannuation and retired on 31st December, 2011. 4. The petitioner preferred another writ petition, being Service Single No. 2171 of 2012 (Chandra Prakash Paliwal v. State of U.P. and others), challenging his punishment order dated 27th February, 2012 and the order dated 18th April, 2012, whereby his salary was denied for the suspension period. In the said writ petition he also prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to pay all the retiral dues of the petitioner along with 12 per cent interest. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 29th January, 2013 by issuing a direction upon the opposite parties to take appropriate decision in regard to payment of post retiral benefits including pension of the petitioner and pass the appropriate order in this regard expeditiously. The Court has also observed that the post retiral benefits of the petitioner cannot be withheld on the basis of the impugned orders, which were passed against him and whereby he has been awarded punishment of censure entry and salary for the suspension period has been denied. It was noticed that at the time of retirement no departmental proceeding was pending and whatever proceeding was initiated, stood finalized by way of punishment, mentioned above. 5. In compliance with the direction of this Court dated 29th January, 2013, the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2014 came to be passed whereby it has been found that the petitioner was engaged on temporary basis and his services were terminated which he challenged in a writ petition and got an interim order, which continued till 2003, hence the service record of the petitioner indicates that no order for his regularization has been passed as yet. Since the petitioner was not regularized, the authority concerned found that he was not entitled for the post retiral benefits. Since the petitioner was not regularized, the authority concerned found that he was not entitled for the post retiral benefits. However, in view of the fact that this Court has disposed of his Writ Petition No. 12567 of 1985 with the direction to the authorities to consider his regularization subject to the conditions mentioned therein, the authority concerned found that the matter needs to be considered by the State Government as it is the appropriate authority to take decision for his regularization. Accordingly, it is stated that the matter was already referred to the State Government. 6. Pending consideration of this writ petition, the State Government has taken a decision to regularize the services of the petitioner. The order passed by the State Government dated 14th January, 2016 has been brought on record by the respondents along with the counter affidavit. The said order recites that the petitioner's regularization will be with effect from 21st August, 1988. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 8. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has worked for a considerable long period, say about more than 30 years. He was entitled for regularization but the said decision has been taken after long period, thus, he should not be made to suffer on the ground of laxity on the part of the State Government. He further submitted that in view of the subsequent developments that the State Government has taken decision for regularization of the petitioner, a direction be issued for sanction of his post retiral benefits including pension without any further loss of time.? 9. Learned Standing Counsel submits that now the order has already been passed and the necessary consequential directions for payment of his post retiral benefits would be passed shortly. 10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. While disposing of Writ Petition No. 2171 (SS) of 2012 this Court had directed the respondents to pay the post retiral benefits including pension to the petitioner if there is no legal impediment. In compliance thereof, it was found by the competent authority that since the petitioner has worked on the basis of the interim order and there was no consideration for his regularization, he was not entitled for pension. In compliance thereof, it was found by the competent authority that since the petitioner has worked on the basis of the interim order and there was no consideration for his regularization, he was not entitled for pension. The said legal impediment stands removed in view of the decision of the State Government to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 21st August, 1988. In view of the above, in my view, no cause of action survives. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2014 has lost its efficacy. 12. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing a direction upon the second respondent to pass the appropriate order for payment of post retiral benefits of the petitioner in view of the decision of the State Government dated 14th January, 2016 expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. The second respondent shall pay regard to the fact that in the matter of payment of post retiral benefits it is well settled law that if there is any loss of time, the employee shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 10 per cent. Hence, in case the pension is not paid within two months from the date of communication of this order, the petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 10 per cent till the actual payment is made to him. 13. No order as to costs.