Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 212 (UTT)

State Of Uttarakhand v. Govind Ram Arya

2021-04-05

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. - The State has challenged the legality of the order dated 28.09.2020, passed by a learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2159 of 2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the State to re-fix the pension of the petitioner, after counting the service rendered by him on ad hoc basis. The learned Single Judge has also directed the respondents to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner after re-fixation of his pension. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that in 1984, the petitioner was appointed as a Fitter in Khadi and Gramodhyog Board, Woolpatti, Almora, Uttar Pradesh. On 04.05.1988, on the basis of the Selection Committee's recommendation, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Production Manager / Incharge (a Class-III post) in the pay-scale of Rs. 515-860. The said selection was on ad hoc basis. The petitioner joined the said post on 17.05.1988. With creation of the State of Uttarakhand on 09.11.2000, the petitioner's services were transferred to Uttarakhand on 02.12.2000, along with 164 employees of the Industries Department. The petitioner was placed at Serial No. 90 of the Allotment List. He continued to function as a Production Manager / Incharge Udhyog Centre, Almora. Subsequently, by order dated 18.04.2006, the petitioner's services were regularized on the post of Production Manager with effect from 05.07.2002 in the payscale of Rs. 4500-7000. After completing twenty-nine years of service, the petitioner retired from the service on 31.05.2017. 4. Having retired on 02.11.2017, the petitioner sent a representation to the Chief Treasury Officer, Almora requesting him to grant him the benefit of the ad hoc service rendered by him, and to combine the same with his regular service before calculating his pension. By letter dated 10.10.2017, the Additional Director, Industries, Uttarakhand, also recommended that for the purposes of calculating the petitioner's pension, his entire service career from 17.05.1988 to 31.05.2017 should be taken into account. Furthermore, by letter dated 19/20.01.2018, the Chief Treasury Officer, Almora, the respondent No. 7, wrote to the General Manager, District Udhyog Kendra, Almora, to decide the petitioner's matter regarding grant of pensionary benefits on the basis of the letter dated 11.01.2018 issued by the Director, Treasury, Pension and Entitlement. Furthermore, by letter dated 19/20.01.2018, the Chief Treasury Officer, Almora, the respondent No. 7, wrote to the General Manager, District Udhyog Kendra, Almora, to decide the petitioner's matter regarding grant of pensionary benefits on the basis of the letter dated 11.01.2018 issued by the Director, Treasury, Pension and Entitlement. Again on 06.02.2018, the Director, Industries, sent a letter to the Director, Treasury, Pension and Entitlement, clearly stating that the petitioner's entire service from 17.05.1988 onwards should be counted for the pensionary benefits. But by letter dated 05.06.2018, the Secretary, Finance, Uttarakhand, informed the Director, Treasury, Pension and Entitlement, Uttarakhand, the respondent No.8, that the petitioner is not entitled to have his ad hoc services calculated for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits. On the basis of the said letter, on 19.06.2018, the Director, Treasury, Pension and Entitlement, Uttarkhand, the respondent No. 8, informed the Director, Industries, that the petitioner's ad hoc service could not be included for the purpose of calculating the pensionary / retiral benefits. 5. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the letters dated 05.06.2018 and 19.06.2018, he filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, in the aforementioned terms, by the order dated 28.09.2020. 6. According to the impugned order dated 28.09.2020, the Deputy Advocate General conceded the fact that the issue whether the petitioner would be entitled to have his ad hoc service included for the purpose of calculating his pensionary / retiral benefits, or not, was settled by this Court by its judgment dated 29.07.2019 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3669 of 2018, Vijendra Pal Dwivedi vs. State of Uttarakhand. In the said case, this Court noticed the fact that similarly situated persons, i.e. other lecturers, who were appointed, their ad hoc services were counted for the purpose of calculating pension and other consequential benefits. However, the said benefit was denied to the petitioner therein. Therefore, this Court directed that the benefit of including the ad hoc service could not be denied to the petitioner therein. On the basis of the said judgment, the learned Single Judge, in the present case, directed the respondents to re-fix the petitioner's pension after counting the service rendered by him on ad hoc basis. The learned Single Judge also directed the respondents to pay all consequential benefits after re-fixation of his pension. 7. On the basis of the said judgment, the learned Single Judge, in the present case, directed the respondents to re-fix the petitioner's pension after counting the service rendered by him on ad hoc basis. The learned Single Judge also directed the respondents to pay all consequential benefits after re-fixation of his pension. 7. This Court has raised a specific query to the learned counsel for the State with regard to the finality of the order dated 29.07.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3669 of 2018 (Vijendra Pal Dwivedi vs. State of Uttarakhand and others). The learned counsel for the State has frankly conceded that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Vijendra Pal Dwivedi (supra) was challenged by the State in Special Appeal No. 100 of 2020 (State of Uttarakhand and others vs. Vijendra Pal Dwivedi). By judgment dated 04.08.2020, a learned Co-ordinate Bench has dismissed the Special Appeal, and confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. This Court has also asked the learned counsel for the State whether an appeal would lie against a consensual order. For, in the present case, it is the Deputy Advocate General for the State, who had conceded before the learned Single Judge that the issue in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 29.07.2019 passed in the case of Vijendra Pal Dwivedi (supra). The learned counsel has frankly conceded, and in the opinion of this Court rightly so, that an appeal does not lie against a consensual order. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the State is highly misplaced. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed. 10. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 11. No order as to costs.