Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1511 (ALL)

Parasnath Gupta v. State of U. P.

2024-05-31

J.J.MUNIR

body2024
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 30.06.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Cooperatives, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and a circular dated 22.04.2019 issued by the Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperatives, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. By the order of 30th June, 2020, the petitioner's claim for grant of pension, clubbing his services as a Cooperative Collection Amin and Junior Clerk (Collection) in the office of the Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Maharajganj, has been rejected. 2. The impugned circular issued by the Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperatives, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow directs that other staff of the Cooperative Department, like Clerks and Drivers, would be entitled to the benefit of pension, reckoning their entire services, if they have superannuated after the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Collection Other Staff Service Rules, 2016 (for short, 'the Rules of 2016'). The other staff, other than Kurk Amins, like Clerks, Drivers etc., who retired before enforcement of the Rules of 2016, would not be eligible for pension. 3. The petitioner was appointed on 25.04.1979 as an Amin on commission basis under the provisions carried in the circular of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow, bearing No.C-28/Adhikashan/ Bakaya, dated 3rd January, 1983. The District Magistrate, Gorakhpur by an order dated 18.07.1983 appointed the petitioner a Tehsil Level Cooperative Collection Amin in the pay-scale of 354-10-424-EB-10-454-12-514-EB-12- 550/-. Pursuant to the orders passed by the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gorakhpur dated 19.07.1983, the petitioner was posted as a Tehsil Level Collection Amin at Tehsil Bansgaon, where the petitioner joined service on 22.07.1983. Later, in terms of an order No.3703-06/ Collection/ Establishment dated 11.08.1997, the petitioner was promoted to the post of a Junior Clerk (Collection) in the pay-scale of 950- 20-1150-EB-25-1500/- in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Gorakhpur. 4. The petitioner claims that he worked on the post of Junior Clerk for 18 years 3 months and 5 days. Detailing his total service period, the petitioner claims that he functioned as a Tehsil Level Cooperative Collection Amin on regular basis from 18.07.1983 to 11.08.1997 and from 12.08.1997 onwards as a Junior Clerk (Collection) in the office of the Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Maharajganj, till his superannuation on 31.10.2015. Detailing his total service period, the petitioner claims that he functioned as a Tehsil Level Cooperative Collection Amin on regular basis from 18.07.1983 to 11.08.1997 and from 12.08.1997 onwards as a Junior Clerk (Collection) in the office of the Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Maharajganj, till his superannuation on 31.10.2015. He says that upon retirement, apart from the due arrears of salary to the tune of Rs.1,44,632/-, he was paid leave encashment worth Rs.3,00,470/- and gratuity in the sum of Rs.2,70,423/-, making an aggregate post retiral benefits of Rs.7,15,525/-. The petitioner did not receive any pension for 7 months after retirement. 5. The petitioner represented his cause to the Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lucknow through registered post on 20.05.2016, but to no avail. There were repeat representations in this regard, of which mention is not necessary. Since, there was no action, the petitioner moved Writ Petition No.19156 of 2019 before this Court, in substance, claiming relief for the sanction of his retirement pension and revision of arrears of his salary, leave encashment dues, gratuity and pension in terms of his total period of service, clubbing all of it. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 16.12.2019, directing the Principal Secretary, Cooperatives, U.P., Lucknow to decide the petitioner's claim for payment of pension, after examining it, in accordance with the judgment dated 28.02.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.6349 (S/S) of 2018, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of the order made in that cause. The petitioner served a copy of the judgment along with a representation dated 31.12.2019 upon the Additional Chief Secretary, Cooperatives. 6. There was again a chase by the petitioner, representing his cause before the Additional Chief Secretary, who sat over the matter. In the end of it all, by an order dated 30.06.2020, the Additional Chief Secretary rejected the petitioner's claim for the payment of pension, clubbing of all his services together for the revision of his post retiral benefits as well. In the end of it all, by an order dated 30.06.2020, the Additional Chief Secretary rejected the petitioner's claim for the payment of pension, clubbing of all his services together for the revision of his post retiral benefits as well. There is another circular, which the Commissioner and Registrar (Cooperatives) addressed to all Assistant Commissioners and Assistant Registrars, besides all Deputy Commissioners and Deputy Registrars/ Joint Commissioner/ Joint Registrar (Cooperatives), U.P., saying that pension would be payable to Clerks, Drivers and Sahyogi, in accordance with Rule 5 and Rule 26 of the Rules of 2016, reckoning their entire period of service, if they have retired after notification of the said Rules, to wit, on 26.08.2016. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2020 and the circular dated 22.04.2019, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. A notice of motion was issued to the respondents on 24.04.2020. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 jointly by the Additional District Collection Officer, Maharajganj on 11.08.2021. On 18.12.2023, when the writ petition came up before this Court, it was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was reserved. 9. Heard Mr. Kunwar Bahadur Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed a Cooperative Kurk Amin in the regular pay-scale on 22.07.1983 and then continued to work on the substantive post of a Junior Clerk (Collection) since 12.08.1997 up to 31.10.2015, that is to say, for a total period of 18 years 2 months and 19 days in the regular pay-scale. He, thus, rendered a total uninterrupted service of 32 years 3 months and 9 days as a government servant on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment to his superannuation. The conditions of the petitioner's service, it is argued, are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Collection Fund and the Amins and Other Staff Service Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules of 2002'). It is submitted that he is entitled to club his entire service together for the purpose of reckoning his post retiral dues, including pension. 11. The conditions of the petitioner's service, it is argued, are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Collection Fund and the Amins and Other Staff Service Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules of 2002'). It is submitted that he is entitled to club his entire service together for the purpose of reckoning his post retiral dues, including pension. 11. It is urged that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Chandra Prakash Pandey and others, (2001) 4 SCC 78 (for any further reference, this case would be referred to as 'Chandra Prakash-I'), Sections 92-A and 92-B were inserted in the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act of 1965') vide U.P. Act No.8 of 2003 w.e.f. 28.02.2002. The submission is that after the said amendment, the service conditions of Amin and other staff, including Clerks and Drivers were governed by the provisions of Sections 92-A and 92-B of the Act of 1965 and Rules framed thereunder, to wit, the Rules of 2002. These Rules, however, did not define properly the cadre of service, governed by the said Rules. Taking advantage of this lacuna, the rightful claim to pensionary benefits of Clerks was denied whereas they received regular salary, gratuity and leave encashment from the same fund established under Section 92-B of the Act of 1965. 12. It is urged that despite several communications by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to the State Government, when the Government failed to take a final decision in the matter of proposed amendment to the Rules of 2002, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20073 of 2010, Bhopal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, was instituted before this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to take a final decision in the matter of effecting these amendments. This writ petition was disposed of in terms of an order dated 06.05.2010 with a direction to the Government to take decision within a period of three months of the date of production of a copy of the order. This was followed in the year 2012 by an action commenced by the Union of Employees of the Cooperative Collection Department. This writ petition was disposed of in terms of an order dated 06.05.2010 with a direction to the Government to take decision within a period of three months of the date of production of a copy of the order. This was followed in the year 2012 by an action commenced by the Union of Employees of the Cooperative Collection Department. They instituted Writ Petition No.3832 of 2012, Uttar Padesh Sahkari Sangrah Karmchari Union through its President v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department and others, which was disposed of by an order dated 11.05.2015, directing the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of U.P., to take a decision in the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order in consultation with other Departments that may be involved in the decision making process, to borrow the words of the learned Judge, who disposed of the said writ petition. This was not complied with by the respondents. Contempt Petition (Civil) No.1945 of 2015 was then instituted by the Karmchari Union, wherein after appearance of the respondents on various dates, the Rules of 2016 were framed and notified w.e.f. 26.08.2016. 13. In compliance with these various judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court, it is argued, the respondents have preferred not to amend the Rules of 2002, and, instead framed the new Rules or the Rules of 2016 for regulating the service of other staff recruited and appointed under the collection scheme of the Cooperative Department. It is, particularly, argued by Mr. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is based on the reasoning that the petitioner having been appointed as a Cooperative Kurk Amin on salary basis w.e.f. 22.07.1983, a post he held upto 11.08.1997, when he was promoted to the post of a Junior Clerk (Collection), a position that he held until his retirement on 31.10.2015, his services were not governed by the Rules of 2002. He is not entitled to pension under the said Rules, which do not extend to him and are limited in their application to the Kurk Amin; not the other staff. He is not entitled to pension under the said Rules, which do not extend to him and are limited in their application to the Kurk Amin; not the other staff. It is pointed out further by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the other ground to found the impugned order is a circular of the Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, where it is opined that pensionary benefits are admissible to only those employees, who have retired after enforcement of the Rules of 2016 i.e. on or after 26.08.2016 and since the petitioner has retired on 31.10.2015, before enforcement of the Rules 2016, he is not entitled to pension. 14. It is submitted by Mr. Srivatava that indisputably pensions to various similarly situate incumbents, like Jagmal Singh, Brij Lal Shukla, Raj Kumar Shukla, have been sanctioned in accordance with the Rules of 2016, whereas the petitioner has been denied the benefit, causing him much prejudice. It is submitted that denial of pension to the petitioner is discriminatory, arbitrary and mala fide. It violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is next submitted that like the Collection Amin, Collection Clerk is also the holder of a civil post under the State as both work under the same Collection Scheme. The State has power and right to select and appoint a Clerk and the power to suspend and dismiss him. He is a subordinate public servant working under the supervision and control of the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. He receives regular salary from the same fund, provided under Section 92-B of the Act of 1965. There exists a relationship of master and servant between the State and the Assistant Clerk, like the petitioner. He holds office in the Revenue Administration and performs duties in connection with affairs of the State. He renders service in the Collection Scheme as provided under Rule 2(o) of the Rules of 2002. The office, that a Junior Clerk holds, if falls vacant on the death of an incumbent, is filled up by offering compassionate appointment. 15. It is urged, on the basis of all these telltale features and bearing in mind the system of Junior Clerk's recruitment, employment and functions that he is a government servant and the holder of a civil post under the State. 15. It is urged, on the basis of all these telltale features and bearing in mind the system of Junior Clerk's recruitment, employment and functions that he is a government servant and the holder of a civil post under the State. It is next submitted that admittedly after judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Pandey-I, the State Government brought amendments and Sections 92-A and 92-B were inserted to the Act of 1965. Apart from the specific provisions carried in Section 92-B, there were statutory Rules of 2002, occupying the field, which in substance were clarified by the Rules of 2016, wherein Chapter VIII was added relating to provision of pensions for other staff, other than the Kurk Amin. 16. It is urged that in pursuance of various decisions, as already pointed out, the Government had framed Rules of 2002, providing for the absorption of existing staff in service. The Rules of 2002 as well as the Rules of 2016, the Amin and the other staff are entitled to pension, gratuity and post retiral benefits, to be paid out of the Sahkari Sangrah Nidhi, governed by Sections 92-A and 92-B, inserted in the Act of 1965 by amendment. The petitioner was appointed as a Cooperative Kurk Amin in the regular pay-scale w.e.f. 22.07.1983 and continued on the said post till he was promoted a Junior Clerk on 12.08.1997, where he functioned up to 31.10.2015, a period of 18 years 2 months and 19 days. He has rendered a total service of 32 years 3 months and 9 days under the respondents as a government servant, throughout on regular basis as a member of the service. He is, therefore, entitled to be governed by the Rules of 2002 for the purpose of his retirement dues and pension. The impugned circular dated 22.04.2019 is based on ambiguous reasoning and a misreading of the statutory provisions of the Rules of 2002. It is arbitrary, discriminatory and irrational. It has the effect of prejudicing the petitioner and frustrating the scheme of Section 92-B of the Act of 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder. The impugned circular, therefore, issued by the Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperatives, is manifestly illegal and fit to be quashed as the learned Counsel for the petitioner says. It is arbitrary, discriminatory and irrational. It has the effect of prejudicing the petitioner and frustrating the scheme of Section 92-B of the Act of 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder. The impugned circular, therefore, issued by the Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperatives, is manifestly illegal and fit to be quashed as the learned Counsel for the petitioner says. In the last, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that in view of the provisions carried in Rules 5(d), 5(j), 5(k) of the Rules of 2016, the petitioner's claim to pension is fit to be granted, entitling him to pension with arrears with effect from the date of superannuation. 17. Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is not at all entitled to pension bearing in mind the date of his retirement. He submits that the Rules of 2002 made provision for pension for Kurk Amins, but not for the other staff, engaged in connection with the Cooperative Collection Scheme. There was no provision for payment of pension to the Clerks and Drivers. He submits that it is no doubt correct that there were efforts by the Union of these employees to enforce their right to receive pension, like Kurk Amins, which led to litigation and the ultimate framing of the Rules of 2016, which came into w.e.f. 26.08.2016. The said Rules provide for pension to Clerks, Drivers and Sahyogi (peon). The difficulty is that the petitioner retired on 31.10.2015 and according to Mr. Tripathi, the benefit of the Rules of 2016 cannot be retrospectively extended to an employee, who has demitted office prior to enforcement of the Rules of 2016. 18. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record. 19. At the centre-stage of the controversy, here is the issue, if the Rules of 2002 made provision for payment of pension to Kurk Amin alone or the 'other staff', engaged in connection with the Cooperative Collection Scheme as well. The other issue is, if the Rules of 2016, that did provide for pension to the 'other staff' engaged in the Cooperative Collection Scheme, would enure to the benefit of those employees, like the petitioner, who retired prior to enforcement of the last mentioned Rules. The other issue is, if the Rules of 2016, that did provide for pension to the 'other staff' engaged in the Cooperative Collection Scheme, would enure to the benefit of those employees, like the petitioner, who retired prior to enforcement of the last mentioned Rules. There is no doubt that the Kurk Amin and the other staff engaged in connection with the Cooperative Collection Scheme, appointed on commission basis, let alone those regularly appointed in a pay-scale, came to be regarded as civil servants in the employ of the Government in consequence of two judgments, where the issue was settled. The first was a Bench decision of this Court at Lucknow in State of U.P. and others v. Chandra Prakash Pandey and others, (1995) 3 UPLBEC 1491 (for any further reference, this case would be referred to as 'Chandra Prakash-II'). The other decision was the one rendered by the Supreme Court on appeal by special leave from Chandra Prakash-II. This decision was Chandra Prakash-I. These decisions need not detain us for the point here is different than what was decided in the aforesaid decisions. 20. The only significance of those very seminal decisions is that Kurk Amin on commission basis and others retained regularly in connection with the Cooperative Collection Scheme, came to be acknowledged as government servants. The establishment of their status and the others staff employed under the Scheme led to the next issue if they were entitled to receive pensions and post retiral benefits, like other government servants. It is the latter issue, or so to speak some subtler aspects of it that are the concern of this Court here. The immediate impact of the two decisions, to wit, Chandra Prakash-II and Chandra Prakash-I, was that the Act of 1965 came to be amended by U.P. Act No.8 of 2003. Sections 92-A and 92-B came to be inserted in the Act of 1965 w.e.f. 28.02.2002, which read: “92-A. Appointment of Amins and other staff.- (1) There shall be appointed such number of Amins and other staff as may be determined by the State Government from time to time, for collection of an amount due to a Co-operative Society or for execution of a process issued in the proceedings of execution of an award, order or certificate for recovery under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 92. (2) The State Government may by rules regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of Amins and other staff. 92-B. Co-operative Collection Fund.:— (1) There shall be established a fund, to be called the Cooperative Collection Fund to which the following amounts shall be credited, namely :— (a) all costs of collection recovered on an amount due to a Cooperative Collection Society; (b) all costs of execution recovered on an award, order or certificate for recovery under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 92; (c) such other amounts as the State Government may direct. (2) The fund established under sub-section (1) shall be utilized for meeting out all expenses relating to collection of dues in the manner as may be prescribed by rules to be framed by the State Government. The expenses relating to collection of dues shall also include payment of commission, salary, leave encashment at the time of retirement, if any, gratuity, other allowances, loans and advances, due interest on Provident Fund and pension to Amins and other staff appointed under section 92-A.” 21. Now, Sections 92-A and 92-B conferred power upon the State Government to make Rules regarding service conditions of Kurk Amin and the other staff, including Clerks and Drivers employed in connection with the Cooperative Collection Scheme. The Rules of 2002 came to be made by the Governor in exercise of powers under Section 130 read with Section 92-A and 92-B of the Act of 1965. As the short title of these Rules would suggest, these apply not only to the Amin, but the 'other staff' as well. The difficulty that arose was that under the Rules of 2002, both in Part VII and Part VIII, the employees, who were spoken of, were Amin and Sahyogi. There was no mention of others, like Clerks and Drivers. Part VII and Part VIII of the Rules of 2002 read: “Part-VII Pay, Allowances, Commission 20. Scales of Pay of Amin and Sahyogi.—(1) The scales of pay admissible to persons appointed shall be such as may be determined by the Government under these rules from time to time. (2) Until any change under sub-rule (1) the scales of pay, payable from the Fund shall be as follows— Sl. No. Name of the post Pay scale (in Rs) 1 Amin 3050-75-3950-80-4590 2 Sahyogi 2550-55-2660-60-3200 21. Allowances admissible to Amin and Sahyogi.— Dearness allowance. (2) Until any change under sub-rule (1) the scales of pay, payable from the Fund shall be as follows— Sl. No. Name of the post Pay scale (in Rs) 1 Amin 3050-75-3950-80-4590 2 Sahyogi 2550-55-2660-60-3200 21. Allowances admissible to Amin and Sahyogi.— Dearness allowance. City compensatory allowance, H.R.A., Travelling allowances, and other allowances shall be at the rate admissible to the State Government employees and shall be paid from Fund. 22. Pay during probation.—(1) Notwithstanding any provision in Fundamental Rules to the contrary, a person on probation, if he is not already in permanent service, shall be allowed increment in the time scale after satisfactory completion of probation period. (2) The pay during probation of a person who was already holding a post, shall be regulated by the relevant fundamental rules. (3) The pay during probation of a person already permanent, shall be regulated by the relevant rules. 23. Target of Recovery.—Target of recovery for Amins and Amins on commission basis shall be fixed by Registrar from time to time. 24. Commission admissible to Amin on commission basis.—(1) The rate of commission to Amins on commission basis shall be as follows— (a) From April to July 4% (b) From August to March 6% (2) In case of recovery more than the target fixed under Rule 23 additional commission may be allowed by Registrar. 25. Records to be submitted.—For payment of salary, commission and additional commission to Amins, they shall have to deposit the following records— (a) The amount for which the citation/attachment or arrest warrant has been served by the Amin and duly certified by the Assistant Development Officer (Co-op.). (b) The amount for which the receipt of the recovery has been issued by the Amin. (c) The payment of the salary, commission/additional commission to the Amin shall be made only in that situation when the collection income received as described above in clause (a) and clause (b) is deposited in the Fund and the compliances of the provisions as laid down under rules have been made. Part-VIII Leave, Provident Fund, Gratuity 26. Leave.—The provisions of financial handbook, Vol. II, Part-2 to 4 shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of leave admissible to the Amins and Sahyogi. 27. Provident Fund.—Amins and Sahyogies shall be eligible for the Provident Fund as may be admissible to Group-C and Group-D Government employees and shall be maintained in the manner prescribed by Registrar. 28. Leave.—The provisions of financial handbook, Vol. II, Part-2 to 4 shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of leave admissible to the Amins and Sahyogi. 27. Provident Fund.—Amins and Sahyogies shall be eligible for the Provident Fund as may be admissible to Group-C and Group-D Government employees and shall be maintained in the manner prescribed by Registrar. 28. Advance.—House building/construction/repair, vehicle and other advances may be granted to Amins and Sahyogies as per rules applicable to Government employees and shall be payable from the Fund. 29. Retirement Benefit.—Amins and Sahyogi shall be eligible for pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as may be admissible from time to time to the Government employees of the respective category. These retiral benefits shall be paid only from the Fund.” (emphasis by Court) 22. In particular, Rule 29 of the Rules of 2002 unequivocally laid down that Amin and Sahyogi shall be eligible for pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits, as may be admissible to government servants of corresponding categories. There is no mention about Clerks and Drivers or what may be called the 'other staff' in Rule 29. The stand, therefore, taken by the State in answer to any claim for pension, gratuity etc. by a Clerk, part of the Cooperative Collection Scheme, was that under Rule 29, it was only the Amin and the Sahyogi, who were entitled; not others. This was particularly the case in matters like the present one, where an employee started serving the Cooperative Collection Scheme as a Kurk Amin and then moved on to become a Clerk. The Clerk's post was a higher post and, therefore, there was passage of staff from Amin to the higher position of a Clerk. Nevertheless, when these more accomplished and experienced hands retired from service and demanded pension or other post retiral benefits, the claims were resisted by the State falling back upon Rule 29 of the Rules of 2002. 23. One of the important decisions, where this issue arose and answered against the State was Jagmal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (3) AWC 2461 . Jagmal Singh had started his career as a Cooperative Kurk Amin on 28.07.1975 in the pay-scale of Rs.200-320/-. Later on, on 28.02.1984, he was appointed on the post of a Cooperative Kurk Amin at the Tehsil Level in the office of the Additional District Cooperative Officer, Sadar, Muzaffar Nagar. Jagmal Singh had started his career as a Cooperative Kurk Amin on 28.07.1975 in the pay-scale of Rs.200-320/-. Later on, on 28.02.1984, he was appointed on the post of a Cooperative Kurk Amin at the Tehsil Level in the office of the Additional District Cooperative Officer, Sadar, Muzaffar Nagar. He was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.354-550/-. Still later, the Additional Registrar (Banking) Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow by an order dated 29.11.1990 directed the Deputy Registrar (Cooperatives), Meerut to appoint the petitioner a Junior Clerk. The Deputy Registrar (Cooperatives), Meerut directed the District Assistant Registrar (Cooperatives), Haridwar to appoint the petitioner on the position of a Junior Clerk in the then newly created District of Haridwar in the pay-scale of Rs.950-1500/-. As the facts gathered from the report in Jagmal Singh (supra) would show he served as a Kurk Amin without any break for 16 years and 17 days and then moved on to become a Junior Clerk (Collections) at the Tehsil Level w.e.f. 21.08.1991. He superannuated on 31.10.2006, completing a total of 31 years and 87 days of service in the regular pay-scale. The petitioner was denied pension. He was recommended for pension by the District Assistant Registrar (Cooperative Societies), Muzaffar Nagar on ground that pension was granted to Cooperative Kurk Amins under the Rules of 2002. Jagmal Singh's claim was resisted on the short case that being a Junior Clerk, his services are not regulated by the Rules of 2002, which applied to an Amin and a Sahyogi, described in the report in Jagmal Singh as an Associate Amin. It was, particularly, urged that under Rule 29 of the Rules of 2002, Jagmal Singh was not entitled to pension. Repelling the contention of the State in Jagmal Singh, Sunil Ambwani, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) held: “9. It was, particularly, urged that under Rule 29 of the Rules of 2002, Jagmal Singh was not entitled to pension. Repelling the contention of the State in Jagmal Singh, Sunil Ambwani, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) held: “9. In State of U. P. and others v. Chandra Prakash Pandey and others, (2001) 4 SCC 78 : 2001 (2) AWC 1399 (SC), arising out of the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to above, the Supreme Court held that the Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis for recovery of outstanding dues of the Co-operative Societies were members of service and Government servants on the ground that Co-operative Kurk Amins were appointed by the Collectors and were being paid out of the cost recovered according to the provisions for the recovery of land revenue, and were also given the revised pay scale. They were performing the same duties and responsibilities as Kurk Amins of other department on salary basis. They enjoy and exercise the power to arrest a person, who is a defaulter; can attach his property, which he can put to auction, like his counter part on regular basis. A Kurk Amin on commission basis and on regular basis similarly follows the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 and U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 in so far as the recovery of land revenue is concerned. Once the District Magistrate issues a recovery citation, both the sets of Kurk Amins in order to execute the recovery follow the same procedure and exercise the powers and they are under the control of one and same authority. Both work in the same capacity under control of the State Government and that their appointments and duties fully comply with the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision of State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, (1983) 2 SCC 33 , in which a Constitution Bench held that the panchayat service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1962 was a civil service of the State and the members of the service were Government servants. It was found that the right of appointment; the right to terminate the employment; the right to take other disciplinary action; the right to prescribe conditions of service; the nature of duties performed by the employees; the right to control the employees; manner and method of work; for issuing directions and the right to determine the source from which wages or salary are paid and a host of such circumstances, have to be considered to determine the exigency of the relationship of master and servant. 10. The issue, as to whether a Cooperative Kurk Amin is a Government servant holding a civil post, is thus, no longer res-integra. This Court and Apex Court have held that the Cooperative Kurk Amins are Government servants, the petitioner, appointed as Co-operative Kurk Amin of the Collectorate on the regular pay scale on 28.7.1975; working continuously thereafter in the capacities of the Sahkari Kurk Amins, and Junior Clerk, continued to serve as a Government servant throughout on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment on 28.7.1975 to the date he attained superannuation and retired at the age of 60 years as a member of service of whose service conditions are, regulated by the Rules of 2002. He is thus entitled to club his entire services together for the purposes of retirement dues and pension.” 24. Jagmal Singh was appealed. Their Lordships of the Division Bench, before whom Special Appeal No.436 of 2009 came up, admitted the appeal on 30.07.2009 by the following order: “Admit. Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that in view of Rule 19 of U.P. Co-operative Collection Fund Regulation, 1982, the post held by the respondent, who. happens to have superannuated from the post of junior clerk, is not a pensionable post. He points out that respondent at his own request was appointed as a junior clerk. During the pendency of the appeal, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed Pendency of the appeal shall not stand in the way of the State Government in taking decision for grant of pension to the junior clerks.” 25. He points out that respondent at his own request was appointed as a junior clerk. During the pendency of the appeal, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed Pendency of the appeal shall not stand in the way of the State Government in taking decision for grant of pension to the junior clerks.” 25. The issue, that because of the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules of 2002, the Clerks and Drivers cannot be treated at par with Amin and Sahyogi, was agitated in U.P. Sahkari Sangrah Karmchari Union through its President (supra), which was disposed of in terms of the following order: “Heard Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nirankar Singh for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Chaurasia, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is a registered Union of Employees of Group-C & D Clerical Assistants and Driver Cadre of Cooperative Societies. The petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the Government in not treating the Clerks, Drivers, Sahyogi (Class IV post) as Government Service as has been done in the case of Amin. Earlier a writ petition no. 6755 (S/S) of 2006, Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Sangrah Karmchari Union through President Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary Revenue and Others had been filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21.09.2011 with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, U.P. Lucknow. It is stated that in pursuance of the said direction the impugned order had been passed, copy of which has been filed at page 18, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel submitted that inspite of the order of this Court no decision has been taken by the respondents and in fact the matter is still engaging the attention of the Government in the Cooperative Department of the Government regarding requisite amendment in the Rules. The impugned order however mentions that the competent authority who is required to take a decision in this regard is the Administrative Department and the Cooperative Department. This does not appear to be a positive categorical decision as to whether the members of the petitioner-Union as mentioned above are eligible to be treated as Government Servant or not. The impugned order however mentions that the competent authority who is required to take a decision in this regard is the Administrative Department and the Cooperative Department. This does not appear to be a positive categorical decision as to whether the members of the petitioner-Union as mentioned above are eligible to be treated as Government Servant or not. In the counter affidavit in paragraph 4 all that has been stated is that the matter for framing the Rules in respect of the petitioner is under departmental consideration and the same is the averment in the supplementary affidavit also. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the members of the petitioner-Union as aforementioned are working along with the Amin and Amin Sahyogi in the matter of recovery of collection dues and that they are also holders of civil posts as held by the Division Bench in the Special Appeal no. 15 (S/B) of 1994, State of U.P. and Others Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey and Others by judgment dated 05.05.1995 which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case reported in (2001) 4 SCC 78 , Civil Appeal No.8467-68 of 1995, State of U.P. and Others Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey and others. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that thereafter the respondents have framed the U.P. Cooperative Clerk Funds Amin and Other Staffs Service Rules, 2002. The submission is that the petitioners are also the holders of civil posts working in the same Department and engaged in the same job of recovery of collection dues therefore the case of the petitioners must be considered at par with the Amin and Amin Sahyogi. No useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending. This writ petition is therefore disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no.1, Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to take a decision in the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in consultation of the other requisite Departments that may be involved in the decision making process.” 26. When the order in U.P. Sahkari Sangrah Karmchari Union through its President remained uncomplied with, as already mentioned, contempt proceedings were launched, which ultimately led to the making and enforcement of the Rules of 2016 w.e.f. 26.08.2016. When the order in U.P. Sahkari Sangrah Karmchari Union through its President remained uncomplied with, as already mentioned, contempt proceedings were launched, which ultimately led to the making and enforcement of the Rules of 2016 w.e.f. 26.08.2016. It would be noticed that the Rules of 2016 by their short title were about the 'other staff' employed in the Collection Scheme of the Cooperative Department. Rule 3 of the Rules of 2016 reads: “3. Application of the Rules.– These Rules shall apply to the post of Clerk, Drivers and Sahyogies appointed in Collection Scheme of the Cooperative Department.” 27. ‘Clerk’ was defined under these Rules by Rule 5(d) whereas members of service were defined under Rule 5(j) and the other staff under Rule 5(k). Rules 5(d), 5(j) and 5(k) read: “5. Definition.– (d) 'Clerk' means Collection Clerk who is working or appointed under these rules: Provided that the clerks appointed before the commencement of these rules shall be deemed to be appointed under these rules; (j) 'Member of Service' means Clerk, Driver and Sahyogies substantively appointed under these rules or deemed to have substantively appointed under orders in force prior to the commencement of these rules; (k) Other Staff means the employees of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Collection other than Amins;” 28. Chapter VIII, Part I of the Rules of 2016 are concerned with the miscellaneous provisions and these are leave, advance and retiral benefits. Rule 26 of the Rules of 2016 govern the subject of post retirement benefits. Rule 26 reads: “26. Retirement Benefit.– Clerks, Drivers and Sahayogies shall be eligible for pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as may be admissible from time to time to the State Government employees of the respective category. These retiral benefits shall be paid only from the Fund. Qualifying service shall be determined on the basis of Civil Service Regulations as applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh and amended by Government from time to time.” 29. On the other hand, the appeal arising out of the decision in Jagmal Singh came up before the Division Bench and their Lordships dismissed the appeal by their order dated 29.01.2019, where the short remark to part with the appeal reads: “4. On the other hand, the appeal arising out of the decision in Jagmal Singh came up before the Division Bench and their Lordships dismissed the appeal by their order dated 29.01.2019, where the short remark to part with the appeal reads: “4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is only from the date when petitioner/respondent was allowed to change his cadre but could not show any provision that earlier service rendered by petitioner/ respondent as Kurk Amin would not count as qualifying service even though it has been held to be a civil post. Even Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Pendey and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, (2001)4 SCC 78 has held that said Kurk Amin is a civil post. He could not show why earlier services rendered by petitioner/respondent as Kurk Amin would not qualify for pension.” 30. The issue, if on the terms of the Rules of 2002, Clerks were indeed entitled to receive pension, particularly under Rule 29 of those Rules was not at all examined. With utmost respect to the learned Single Judge, who decided Jagmal Singh, his Lordship also did not go into the issue as to what would be the effect of Rule 29 of the Rules on the entitlement of a Clerk, employed in connection with the Cooperative Collection Scheme, to be paid pension. 31. In Ramsevak v. State of U.P. and others, 2019 : AHC: 136501, the issues that are involved here engaged the attention of the learned Single Judge. So far as the instant issue is concerned, the facts in Ramsevak (supra) have to be noticed from the report, which reads: “2. Facts, that give rise to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 100-180 vide order dated 7.10.1970. He continued in service as such and after working for 39 years and 8 months he superannuated on 30.6.2018. Till the time petitioner continued to work and attained the age of superannuation he was not holding any post in an pensionable establishment nor any pension was paid to him. After his retirement, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 26601 of 2012 with a grievance that the amount of gratuity and leave encashment has not been paid to him. After his retirement, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 26601 of 2012 with a grievance that the amount of gratuity and leave encashment has not been paid to him. The writ petition was disposed of vide following orders passed on 28.5.2012:- “The grievance of the petitioner in the matter of payment of Gratuity and Leave Encashment needs to be examined by respondent no. 4 (District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mainpuri), at the first instance. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation ventilating all his grievances before respondent no. 4, within two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order. On such a representation being made the respondent no. 4 shall call for the records and shall pass a reasoned speaking order preferably within eight weeks after affording opportunity of hearing to the bank concerned.” 3. Consequential order was passed by the Registrar on 16.7.2012, which is not assailed. It appears that thereafter service rules have been framed under Section 92-A readwith section 130 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,1965 on 26.8.2016, known as 'U.P. Cooperative Collection Amin and other Employees Rules, 2016' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2016'). In this rule, clerk is defined in Clause-5(d) in following terms:- 4. Relying upon the aforesaid provision the writ petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus of commanding the respondents to release pension to petitioner on the ground that the post of clerk from which the petitioner had retired is now made pensionable under the Rules of 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Jagmal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2009(4) ADJ 744 and also the order passed by this Court in Service Single No. 5844 of 2019.” 32. In answering the issue if Jagmal Singh held that the petitioner, a Clerk, would be entitled to pension under the Rules of 2002, his Lordship in Ramsevak distinguished Jagmal Singh from the case under consideration, in terms of the following remarks: “7. So far as the judgment in the case of Jagmal Singh (supra) is concerned, the issue there was entirely distinct. The issue that fell for consideration before this Court was as to whether a Cooperative Kurk Amin is a government servant holding a civil post or not? So far as the judgment in the case of Jagmal Singh (supra) is concerned, the issue there was entirely distinct. The issue that fell for consideration before this Court was as to whether a Cooperative Kurk Amin is a government servant holding a civil post or not? Issue has been answered in paragraphs no. 8 to 10 of the judgment which is extracted here in after:- 8. The Co-operative Kurk Amins are engaged for realization of Government dues. They discharge same functions and duties as regularly appointed collection Amins in the revenue department of the State. 9. In State of U. P. and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey and Ors. MANU/SC/0180/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 78 : 2001 (2) AWC 1399 (SC), arising out of the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to above, the Supreme Court held that the Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis for recovery of outstanding dues of the Co-operative Societies were members of service and Government servants on the ground that Co-operative Kurk Amins were appointed by the Collectors and were being paid out of the cost recovered according to the provisions for the recovery of land revenue, and were also given the revised pay scale. They were performing the same duties and responsibilities as Kurk Amins of other department on salary basis. They enjoy and exercise the power to arrest a person, who is a defaulter; can attach his property, which he can put to auction, like his counter part on regular basis. A Kurk Amin on commission basis and on regular basis similarly follows the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 and U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 in so far as the recovery of land revenue is concerned. Once the District Magistrate issues a recovery citation, both the sets of Kurk Amins in order to execute the recovery follow the same procedure and exercise the powers and they are under the control of one and same authority. Once the District Magistrate issues a recovery citation, both the sets of Kurk Amins in order to execute the recovery follow the same procedure and exercise the powers and they are under the control of one and same authority. Both work in the same capacity under control of the State Government and that their appointments and duties fully comply with the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision of State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni MANU/SC/0346/1983 : (1983) 2 SCC 33 , in which a Constitution Bench held that the panchayat service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1962 was a civil service of the State and the members of the service were Government servants. It was found that the right of appointment; the right to terminate the employment; the right to take other disciplinary action ; the right to prescribe conditions of service ; the nature of duties performed by the employees ; the right to control the employees ; manner and method of work ; for issuing directions and the right to determine the source from which wages or salary are paid and a host of such circumstances, have to be considered to determine the exigency of the relationship of master and servant. 10. The issue, as to whether a Cooperative Kurk Amin is a Government servant holding a civil post, is thus, no longer res-integra. This Court and Apex Court have held that the Cooperative Kurk Amins are Government servants, the petitioner, appointed as Cooperative Kurk Amin of the Collectorate on the regular pay scale on 28.7.1975 ; working continuously thereafter in the capacities of the Sahkari Kurk Amins, and Junior Clerk, continued to serve as a Government servant throughout on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment on 28.7.1975 to the date he attained superannuation and retired at the age of 60 years as a member of service of whose service conditions are, regulated by the Rules of 2002. He is thus entitled to club his entire services together for the purposes of retirement dues and pension. 8. Once a finding has been returned by this Court in the case of Jagmal Singh (supra) that a Cooperative Kurk Amin is a government servant and holds a civil post. The provisions applicable upon the government employees would get attracted. He is thus entitled to club his entire services together for the purposes of retirement dues and pension. 8. Once a finding has been returned by this Court in the case of Jagmal Singh (supra) that a Cooperative Kurk Amin is a government servant and holds a civil post. The provisions applicable upon the government employees would get attracted. The petitioner, himself was appointed as a clerk and is claiming benefit under the Rules of 2016, which is a distinct claim altogether. 9. As against this, the admitted facts in the present case is that the petitioner neither claims to hold any civil post nor has claimed status of a government servant. The post held by the petitioner was otherwise not a pensionary post. It is only after the rules of 2016 have been framed that the post itself has been treated as a civil post and the employee concerned is granted benefit admissible to a government servant. Since the Rules of 2016 itself are not found to be applicable upon the petitioner no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider petitioner's claim for payment of pension.” 33. Indeed, in Jagmal Singh, though a plea based on Rule 29 of the Rules of 2002 was raised and noticed by the Court, it was never decided, as already remarked. In Jagmal Singh, his Lordship went on to decide the issue about the petitioner being a government servant holding a civil post, on the foot of which, the petitioner was permitted to club his services earlier as a Kurk Amin and later as a Clerk together, entitling him to pension. There is no pronouncement in Jagmal Singh about the effect of Rule 29. To this extent, I am in respectful agreement with opinion expressed in Ramsevak that Jagmal Singh proceeds on a different issue than the one here. Rather, it is not at all an authority on the point if Rule 29 of the Rules of 2002 would entitle a Driver to pension and other retirement benefits. 34. Upon a plain reading of the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules of 2002, it has to be held that a Clerk engaged in connection with the Cooperative Collection Scheme is not entitled to pension, gratuity or other post retiral benefits. 34. Upon a plain reading of the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules of 2002, it has to be held that a Clerk engaged in connection with the Cooperative Collection Scheme is not entitled to pension, gratuity or other post retiral benefits. It is well settled that if the provisions of a statute are unequivocal and clear, the rule of literal interpretation ought be adopted and the statute understood for what it means, giving effect to every word of it. This is how a Court ought read a statute unless it leads to some incongruous or absurd result, or presents some other difficulty in giving effect to the underlying intention or object of the legislation. This is not a case at all where the underlying intention may be required to be given effect to. This we say notwithstanding the fact that the short title of the Rules does hint that these apply to the ‘other staff’ as well, apart from the Amin. Nevertheless, the entire scheme of the Rules are conspicuously silent about the other staff, except Sahyogi, who find mention along with the Amin. 35. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Rules of 2002 cannot be extended in their application, including Rule 29, to a Clerk serving in connection with the Cooperative Collection Scheme. The first question involved is decided accordingly. 36. The other question, which survives for consideration is if the petitioner is entitled to pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits under the Rules of 2016. Clearly, these Rules were enforced w.e.f. 26.08.2016. The petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2015. The Rules have not been given retrospective operation, either expressly or by necessary intendment. These Rules are substantive Rules and the well settled canon of construction is that all substantive law is deemed to be prospective, unless expressly made retrospective. 37. In the view that I take, I am fortified by the holding on the point in Ramsevak, where this was an issue that was examined. In Ramsevak, it was held: “6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the 'Rules of 2016' have come into force only on 26.8.2016. Clause-1(iv)of the Rules of 2016 clearly makes this provision prospective in nature. No provision in the Rules of 2016 has been brought to the notice of the Court which may indicate that these Rules would have retrospective effect. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the 'Rules of 2016' have come into force only on 26.8.2016. Clause-1(iv)of the Rules of 2016 clearly makes this provision prospective in nature. No provision in the Rules of 2016 has been brought to the notice of the Court which may indicate that these Rules would have retrospective effect. Clause-5(d), read with its proviso, would only make the rule applicable upon the clerks who were appointed prior to the framing of Rules of 2016 provided they are working on the date of enforcement of the Rules of 2016. These rules, therefore, would have no applicability upon the case of the petitioner who was appointed in the year 1970 and had retired in the year 2011 i.e. prior to the introduction of Rules of 2016.” 38. A reading of the entire Scheme and Rules of 2016, including Rule 1(2), Rule 5 and Rule 5(d), lead to the inescapable conclusion, apart from what has been said above that these Rules have no retrospective operation. These would never apply or enure to the benefit of an employee, who has retired from service before the date of enforcement of the Rules of 2016. The other question, therefore, involved in this petition is also decided against the petitioner. 39. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this petition. It fails and is dismissed. 40. There shall be no order as to costs.