Allahabad High Court
Naval Kishore Rai vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 30 September, 2020
Author: Saral Srivastava
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25623 of 2018 Petitioner :- Naval Kishore Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following main relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 06.02.2018 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and pay entire retiral dues including his pension and other consequential benefits after calculating his services rendered by him on work charge basis i.e. 01.04.1978, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Habib Khan Vs. State of Uttaranchal"
As per the pleadings in the petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as Helper on 01.04.1978 on work charge basis in the Irrigation Department, Varanasi and his services was regularized with effect from 01.05.2006. The petitioner has retired on 01.06.2018. The petitioner is not being paid retiral dues and in the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner has prayed for the relief inserted above.
A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent nos.2 to 4, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner had worked since 01.04.1978 to 30.04.2006 in work charge establishment and thereafter since 01.05.2006 to 31.01.2018 in regular department. The petitioner has retired on 31.01.2018, but in view of the letter dated 01.08.2005 which provides that the services rendered in work charge establishment shall not be included for the purposes of pension and gratuity as has been provided in Civil Services Regulation 370.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. decided on 02.09.2019 has held that the work charge period rendered by an employee shall be included for the purposes of pension and, therefore, the ground on which the pension of the petitioner has been denied is not sustainable.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the letter dated 01.08.2005 provides that the period rendered as work charge employee shall not be counted for the purposes of service, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the same.
I have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
It is admitted by the respondents the the petitioner was initially appointed as Helper employee on 01.04.1978 and had continued to work as work charge employee till 03.04.2006. The services of the petitioner was regularized on 01.05.2006 and he retired on 01.06.2018.
In view of the aforesaid fact that the petitioner has worked as work charge employee since 01.04.1978, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Sing (supra) is applicable and the controversy as in the present case is concluded by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra). Consequently, the services rendered by the petitioner in work charge employee are liable to be counted for the purposes of pension.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and a mandamus is issued to the respondent no.4-The Executive Engineer, Tube-well Construction Division, Irrigation Department Varanasi to add the service rendered as work charge employee in the services rendered by the petitioner as regular employee and pay the pension and other retiral dues to the petitioner which the petitioner is entitled as per law.
For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.9.2020 Ravi Kant