Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 408 (ALL)

Mangrey Lal v. State of U. P.

2022-03-22

VIVEK CHAUDHARY

body2022
JUDGMENT : Vivek Chaudhary, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to be issued to the respondents to pay the pension to the petitioner from the date of his superannuation immediately alongwith interest of 18% per annum. 3. The petitioner, who was appointed as a daily wager in the year 1964 and thereafter on the post of Forest Guard in the year 1983, was regularized by order dated 24.5.2003 w.e.f. 6.1.1998 on the post of Forest Guard. Thereafter the petitioner continued to work till his date of retirement and retired in the year 2000. 4. There is no dispute that since the year 1964 till his regularization in the year 1998, the petitioner continuously worked as is clear from the regularization letter, therefore, it is evident that the petitioner continued to work with the Government department since the year 1964 till the year 2000. It is also not disputed that the petitioner worked as a daily wager/adhoc basis and was not on work charge basis. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the case is squarely covered by the judgment in Dr. Ram Sharan Tripathi v. State of U.P. and another, 2021(9) ADJ 465 . He has placed reliance upon paras 6 to 10 of the said judgment which read as follows : ''6. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the proposition adverted to in the aforenoted judgment. He, however, submits that in view of the amendment brought about by Act, 2021, defining 'qualifying service', the service rendered by petitioner as an ad-hoc employee would not fall within the ambit of the expression ''qualifying service'' defined under Section 2 of Ordinance dated 21.10.2020 (subsequently Act, 2021), which reads thus: ''2. Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule, regulation or Government order for the purpose of entitlement of pension to an officer, ''Qualifying Service'' means the services rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service rules prescribed by the Government for the post.'' 7. The provision was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. through its Secretary, Foods and Civil Supplies v. Mahendra Singh (Special Appeal Defective No. 1003 of 2020, decided on 4.2.2021). The provision was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. through its Secretary, Foods and Civil Supplies v. Mahendra Singh (Special Appeal Defective No. 1003 of 2020, decided on 4.2.2021). The relevant portion of the order is extracted: ''It is clear from perusal of Section 2 of the Ordinance that it would have effect notwithstanding anything contained in U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 or Regulation 361 and 370 of the Civil Service Regulation. Though it has been informed at the bar that in certain writ petitions, validity of the aforesaid U.P. Ordinance has been challenged, however, even if for purpose of adjudicating the present appeal the Ordinance is accepted as it is, Section 2 thereof would inure to the benefit to the opposite party-petitioner and not to the benefit of appellants. The word ''Qualifying Service'' has been defined in Section 2 of the aforesaid U.P. Ordinance to mean the services rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service rules prescribed by the Government for the post. As discussed aforesaid, the appellants have admitted the appointment of the opposite party-petitioner on temporary post of Godown Chaukidar from 4.9.1981 till the date of his appointment on a regular post in 1997. Therefore, under this very U.P. Ordinance, the petitioner is entitled to his claim for counting the period of his service from the date of his appointment on 4.9.1981 on a temporary post till his regularization on the permanent post in the year 1997. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.'' 8. In the facts of the present case, the admitted position, inter se parties is, (i) petitioner came to be appointed against substantive vacancy; (ii) the salary was borne by Government; (iii) petitioner was entitled to all benefits as applicable to a State employee. 9. The expression ''qualifying service'', as defined under Act, 2021, would mean service rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of service rules prescribed by the Government for the post. 9. The expression ''qualifying service'', as defined under Act, 2021, would mean service rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of service rules prescribed by the Government for the post. In the present case, the Government, having regard to the large number of vacancies existing in State of U.P. of Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officer, took a conscious decision to curtail the long procedure of appointment through the Public Service Commission by directly issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post and on the recommendation of the selection committee, candidates were selected. The appointment letter were issued after obtaining approval from Hon'ble Governor. It cannot be said in the circumstances that the rules applicable for appointment were not followed. The rules, as were made applicable for appointment on ad-hoc basis was duly complied and followed and petitioner, admittedly, came to be appointed against substantive vacancy, thereafter, his service came to be regularized under Rule, 1979. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that appointment of the petitioner was against the service rules prescribed by Government. Under the pension rules a temporary Government servant appointed against a substantive post is entitled to pension. The nomenclature 'ad-hoc' would have no bearing to non-suit the petitioner towards pension. The nature of appointment is temporary appointment against a substantive post after following the procedure laid down to appoint such ad-hoc/temporary Medical Officer. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner's service would fall within the expression ''qualifying service'' as petitioner came to be appointed against substantive post by following procedure prescribed by the State Government. It is not in dispute that appointing authority of the petitioner is the Hon'ble Governor. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 4.1.2018, is hereby set aside and quashed. It is held that the service rendered by petitioner on ad-hoc basis would count towards ''qualifying service'', consequently, petitioner is held entitled for pension. The first respondent is directed to compute pension and other post retiral dues admissible to the petitioner by adding the period of ad-hoc service rendered by him. Petitioner shall be entitled to pension on month to month basis with effect from the date of his superannuation. The first respondent is directed to compute pension and other post retiral dues admissible to the petitioner by adding the period of ad-hoc service rendered by him. Petitioner shall be entitled to pension on month to month basis with effect from the date of his superannuation. The arrears of pension would be computed and released within the period of three months, alongwith simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of retirement till actual payment.'' 5. Learned Standing Counsel has tried to make some distinction but I do not find any distinction between the two orders. The controversy is already settled by the Division Bench by judgment dated 4.2.2021 in Special Appeal Defective No. 1003 of 2020 (State of U.P. and others v. Mahendra Singh), followed by a learned Single Judge in the case of Dr. Ram Sharan Tripathi (supra). 6. Even presuming that the services of the petitioner were temporary from the year 1983 till his regularisation in the year 2003, in view of aforesaid judgment, he was entitled for the benefit of the same also for the purpose of pension. It is held that the services rendered by the petitioner on temporary basis since the year 1964 till his regularisation shall also be counted for the purpose of computing his pension and other post retiral dues admissible to the petitioner. The arrears of pension would be computed and released within a period of three months alongwith simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment of the same. Consequence to follow. 7. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.