Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 761 (ALL)

Kailash Singh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2021-07-30

PANKAJ BHATIA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 23.05.1990 and his services were regularised on 15.11.2007 as Junior Engineer (Jal) in Jal Sansthan & Nagar Palika, Jalkal Establishment under the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services. 2. It is stated that the petitioner retired on 31.12.2019 and was entitled for payment of pension and gratuity. It is stated that on 22.02.2020, the General Manager of the Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj wrote a letter to the Director, Directorate of Local Bodies, respondent no.2 herein stating that the petitioner retired from the services and the pension papers were being forwarded for further action, however, as no action was taken the present writ petition has been filed claiming pension and the gratuity and interest thereon. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent taking a stand that as the services of the petitioner were regularised on 15.11.2007, he has not completed qualifying service so as to get the benefit of pension and gratuity. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the Rules applicable being Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Services Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981, qualifying service has been clearly defined under Rule (X) which made it very clear that even the services rendered as ad hoc would be counted for the purposes of calculating the qualifying services as such the stand taken by the respondent is not justified. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shashi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., wherein this Court specifically considered the issue of qualifying services as referred to in the erstwhile U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, which is paramateria to the Rule 2 (X) of 2001 Rules and held that the ad hoc services shall also be counted while calculating qualifying services for pensionery benefit along with said judgment and said rules. 5. I have no hesitation holding that the stand of the respondent in not counting the services of the petitioner from 23.05.1990 (the date of initial appointment) up to 15.11.2007 (the date of regularisation) is bad in law and contrary to the Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and allowed and the mandamus is issued to the respondents to compute and pay pension and gratuity to the petitioner within four months from today. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and allowed and the mandamus is issued to the respondents to compute and pay pension and gratuity to the petitioner within four months from today. The petitioner shall also entitle to interest at the rate of 8% from 17.08.2019 up to payment/realisation. 6. The petition stands allowed in terms of the said order.