Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 409 (UTT)

Girish Chandra Joshi v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-14

LOK PAL SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT Lok Pal Singh, J. - By means of the present writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of petitioners for post retiral benefits and sanction and release all post retiral benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment, commutation etc and regular pension and arrears with interest. 2. Facts leading to the case are that petitioners were engaged as daily wager/seasonal worker by the department in 1976-77 and they got regularized on 05.07.2015. They continued to serve the department for almost forty years and after serving the department for more than thirty years and they were made permanent in view of Regularization Rules of 2013. They retired from the department on 09.06.2017 and 15.09.2017 respectively. The petitioners were paid a minimum of pay band of Rs. 5200+1800 grade pay i.e. Rs.7000 plus dearness allowance but they were never given minimum of pay till they were permanent. In the year 2013, State Government framed Regularization Rules 2013 which have again been framed as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court. The 2013 Rules relate to regularization of the service of all the persons who have been initially appointed on daily wages in Group D posts before 29.06.1991, and were continuing in services on the date of commencement of the rules. Admittedly, petitioners had been working in the department since 01.04.1976 & 10.07.1977 and were continuing in service on the date of commencement of the rules. Now after retirement the petitioners are seeking retiral benefits in view of the facts that they rendered more than 10 years of continues service and they have not been paid retiral benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of " Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2019) 10 SCC 516 ". 4. Learned Government pleader does not dispute the above facts. 5. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the case of Prem Singh (Supra), this Court is satisfied that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the said judgment. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:- "36. 4. Learned Government pleader does not dispute the above facts. 5. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the case of Prem Singh (Supra), this Court is satisfied that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the said judgment. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:- "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularised in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularised. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension. 37. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that services rendered in the work- charged establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid rule for grant of pension. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed." 6. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed." 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment " Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2019) 10 SCC 516 ". No order as to costs. 7. Order accordingly.