Allahabad High Court
Smt.Sukhraji Devi @ Basanti vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 18 January, 2023
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21437 of 2022 Petitioner :- Smt.Sukhraji Devi @ Basanti Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yashwant Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension and other retiral benefits has been rejected.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in District Deoria on 05.08.1984. A Gradation list was published by the office of the District Collector, Deoria for the services of the Seasonal Collection Amins working in District Deoria for regularization on the post of Collection Amin.
That in the year 1993 when the services of the Collection Amins of the petitioner's husband was regularized on the post of Collection Amin then the husband of the petitioner also approached the Higher Authorities claiming his regularization.
Later, the District Magistrate, Kushinagar passed an order regularizing the services of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin.
It is urged that the husband of the petitioner continued to discharge his duties on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin till the date of regularization. It is only on 30.06.2020 that the husband of the petitioner retired from the post of Collection Amin after attaining the age of superannuation.
It is urged that the grievance as raised by the husband of the petitioner was not decided even after retirement and up till his death. The petitioner had filed a petition before the Services Tribunal regarding the retiral dues and other consequential benefits which came to be decided on 23.03.2021 and a direction was issued that the representation moved by the petitioner dated 09.02.2021 be decided within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order passed by the respondent-Services Tribunal, a copy of the order has been brought on record as Annexure No. 4 to the petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that her husband had discharged his duties from 05.08.1984 till 30th June, 2020 with an unblemished service records, however, the claim of the petitioner and her husband has been illegally turned down, though, several persons junior to the husband of the petitioner regularized and they have received pension and other service benefits.
It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner assails the order dated 20th October, 2021 whereby the representation of the petitioner in furtherance of the order passed by the Services Tribunal is rejected.
In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhanu Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; Manu/UP/1955/2022. It is thus urged that the claim of the petitioner has not been properly considered and has been rejected on untenable grounds.
Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the husband of the petitioner was regularized on 28.02.2019 and till the date of his superannuation, he had not worked for the minimum period for which he was entitled for pension rather he had worked only for 16 months and two days and as such in terms of the relevant Government Orders any Government servant who had not completed ten years of service was not entitled to the pension.
It is further urged that the aforesaid issue regarding the admissibility of pensionary benefits to the persons who were Seasonal Collection Amin was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Chandra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others in Special Appeal No. 398 of 2021 decided on 22.04.2022 wherein it was held that that a Seasonal Collection Amin is appointed for a limited time only for a specified duty on the completion of which he is discharged.
It is urged that in view thereof the husband of the petitioner had not completed the necessary period to be granted the benefit of pension.
It has further been pointed out that the reliance which has been made on the case of Bhanu Pratap Singh (supra) by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no applicability in the instant case as the case of Bhanu Pratap Singh (supra) was different and it related to the issue of regularization where the Court was dealing with the issue of regularization and there was no consideration regarding the pensionary benefits to the Seasonal Collection Amins.
It is thus urged that the aforesaid decision as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not come to his rescue and the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Sri Chandra Singh (Supra).
The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.
The facts are not disputed to the extent that the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in the year 1984 and that his services came to be regularized only on 28.02.2019. It is also not disputed that the husband of the petitioner attained superannuation on 30.06.2020 and on the date of his superannuation, he had only accrued a service of 16 months and two days from his regularization.
This aspect of the matter regarding the grant of pensionary benefits has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Chandra Singh (Supra) and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:-
"13. A Seasonal Collection Amin is appointed for a limited time only for a specified duty, on the completion of which he is discharged. Duty performed as a Seasonal Collection Amin intermittently, will not fall within the category "continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh" within the purview of Rule 352 (a) of the Civil Service Regulations reproduced above. It will also not fall within the purview of "services rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post" occurring in Section 2 of the U. P. Act No. 1 of 2021. Therefore, the service rendered by petitioner as seasonal collection Amin cannot be added while computing qualifying service as defined under Article 361 of Civil Service Regulation or Section 2 of The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service of Pension and Validation Act, 2021.
14. In Prem Singh v. State of U.P. (Supra) the employee concerned was appointed as a welder in the year 1965 in a work-charged establishment. He was transferred from one place to another and thereafter ultimately the Selection Committee recommended for regularisation of his services. His services were regularised on 13-03-2002 and was posted as pump operator in the regular establishment. He superannuated on 31-01-2007. Then he filed a writ petition in the High Court on 31-07-2008 to count the period spent in the work-charged establishment as qualifying service under the Rules of 1965. In the present case, the Hon'ble Single Judge has held that prior to his regularization in the year 1966, the Appellant was being engaged as seasonal collection Amin, on a seasonal basis and not on regular basis and the competent authority has rightly not counted the services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization for the purposes of pension. Therefore, the law laid down in Prem Singh does not apply to the present case."
In the said case, the contention of the appellant was that this entire service be counted for the purpose of giving the pensionary benefits. The Court had the occasion to consider the effect of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service of Pensions and Validation Act of 2021 as well as the effect of being on the post Seasonal Collection Amin and in light of the findings as reproduced hereinabove, the Division Bench held that the service as defined under Article 361 of the Civil Services Regulations of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service of Pension and Validation Act of 2021.
Having considered the aforesaid and in view of the aforesaid decision of Sri Chandra Singh, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits as the husband of the petitioner did not complete the minimum ten years in terms of the relevant Government Order to entitle him to give the pensionary benefits. The decision of Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh (Supra) as quoted above was on a different set of facts and is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition, accordingly, it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.1.2023 Asheesh