Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1356 (ALL)

Gopi Chand v. Divisional Forest Officer Bijnor

2020-11-23

SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been engaged as Gatekeeper in U.P. Forest Department and was posted at Bijnor. 3. The petitioner was subsequently made Seasonal Chack Moharrir w.e.f 04.12.1984 till he was regularized on 27.05.2002. The petitioner has retired on 31.03.2011. The petitioner after his retirement claimed his retiral dues which was rejected by the respondent no.1-Divisional Forest Officer, Bijnor by order dated 11.04.2012 on the ground that services of the petitioner has been regularized on 27.05.2002 and petitioner has retired on 31.03.2011 thus, petitioner has rendered only eight years ten months and four days service as a permanent employee and prior to that, he has worked only as Seasonal Chack Moharrir for eight months which was not a regular service, and therefore, the said period cannot be counted for the purposes of determination of qualifying service for pension. The order dated 11.04.2012 is impugned in the present petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which respondents have stated in paragraph 5 that petitioner has worked since 04.12.1984 as Seasonal Chack Moharrir and there was break in service. Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit is being extracted hereinbelow:- "That the petitioner had worked under the respondent No.1 as @vkB ekgh lhtuy pSd eksgfjZj (Check Moharrir for a period of eight month) from 04/12/1984 to 26/05/2002. Every year the petitioner' was required to work for a period of 8 months i.e. from November/December upto June of the said year. A detailed chart of the petitioner's work from the year-1984-85 to 2001-2002 is quoted herein below:- Year Date wise details Period of work Last day. Every year the petitioner' was required to work for a period of 8 months i.e. from November/December upto June of the said year. A detailed chart of the petitioner's work from the year-1984-85 to 2001-2002 is quoted herein below:- Year Date wise details Period of work Last day. 1984-85 04.12.1984 to 30.06.1985 6 month 28 days 30/06/1985 1985-86 02.11.1985 to 30.06.1986 7 month 29 days 30.06.1986 1986-87 10.11.1986 to 30.06.1987 7 month 21 days 30.06.1987 1987-88 12.11.1987 to 30.06.1988 7 month 19 days 30.06.1988 1988-89 05.11.1988 to 30.06.1989 8 month 26 days 30.06.1989 1989-90 01.11.1990 to 30.06.1991 8 month 0 days 30.06.1990 1990-91 01.11.1991 to 30.06.1992 8 month 0 days 30.06.1991 1991-92 05.12.1992 to 30.06.1993 7 month 26 days 30.06.1992 1992-93 01.11.1992 to 30.06.1993 8 month 0 days 30.06.1993 1993-94 01.11.1993 to 30.06.1994 8 month 0 days 30.06.1994 1994-95 01.11.1994 to 30.06.1995 8 month 0 days 30.06.1995 1995-96 01.11.1995 to 30.06.1996 8 month 0 days 30.06.1996 1996-97 01.11.1996 to 30.06.1997 8 month 0 days 30.06.1997 1997-98 12.11.1997 to 30.06.1998 7 month 19 days 30.06.1998 1998-99 02.11.1998 to 30.06.1999 7 month 29 days 30.06.1999 1999-00 01.12.1999 to 30.06.2000 7 month 0 days 30.06.2000 2000-01 01.11.2000 to 30.06.2001 8 month 0 days 30.06.2001 2001-02 10.11.1986 to 25.05.1987 6 month 5 days 30.05.2002” 5. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that since petitioner has completed only eight years ten months and four days as regular employee, therefore, he is not entitled to pension. 6. Challenging the order dated 11.04.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is admitted on record by the respondents in the counter affidavit that petitioner has been engaged as Seasonal Chack Moharrir since 04.12.1984, therefore, he is entitled to service rendered since 04.12.1984 as Seasonal Chack Moharrir to be counted for the purposes of determination of qualifying service for pension. He submits that the impugned order is perverse and based upon incorrect facts on record inasmuch as the respondents themselves admitted that petitioner has been engaged as Seasonal Chack Moharrir on 04.12.1984 and as such, the said order is not sustainable in law. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2019 (10) SCC 516 . 7. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2019 (10) SCC 516 . 7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would contend that there was break in service of the petitioner as Seasonal Chack Moharrir, and therefore, the aforesaid period has rightly been excluded by the authority in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 9. It is admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit that petitioner was working as Seasonal Chack Moharrir since 04.12.1984 with short break. The Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) has held that service rendered by an employee as work charged employee or daily wager or on contract basis has to be counted for the purposes of determination of qualifying service for pension. 10. In view of the admitted case of the respondents that the date of engagement of petitioner is taken to be 04.12.1984 in the department which is also evident from the service book annexed alongwith the writ petition as annexure 6 to the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the authority has erred in ignoring the period of service rendered as Seasonal Chack Moharrir by the petitioner since 1984. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.04.2012 cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly, set aside. The respondent no.1-Divisional Forest Officer, Bijnor is directed to calculate the service of the petitioner rendered as Seasonal Chack Moharrir for the purposes of determining the qualifying service for pension and grant all benefits in terms of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above. 12. In view of the fact that due to the pandemic of COVID-19, the certified copy is not being issued by the High Court, therefore, the order downloaded from the website duly certified by learned counsel for the petitioner may be treated as true copy of the order and the Authority may not refuse to comply the order on the ground of non filing of certified copy of the order.