Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/615/2024 on 3 October, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
Sl. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSB No. 615 of 2024
with
WPSB No. 625 of 2024
WPSB No. 626 of 2024
WPSB No. 616 of 2024
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Susheel Vashistha, Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.
3. Petitioner in WPSB No. 615 of 2024 was appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Lecturer in Government Polytechnic run by State Government w.e.f. 13.07.1988, his services were regularized vide order dated 18.11.2003 and he retired from service, on 31.07.2021. After retirement, petitioner's pension was fixed taking into account the services rendered by him, after his regularization in service.
4. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought a direction to respondents to re-calculate his pension by taking into account the services rendered by him as ad hoc employee between 13.07.1988 till the date of his regularisation i.e. 18.11.2003. Petitioner relies upon a judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 441 of 2022. The direction issued in the said judgment is as follows:-
"16. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to recalculate petitioner's pension after including the period from 04.05.1988 as per the experience certificate (Annexure-1) till his date of regularization, i.e. 15.09.2012, within a period of two months, and give necessary benefits to the petitioner. After re-fixing the pension of the petitioner, arrears will be restricted only to three years."
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since coordinate Bench has held that entire service rendered on ad hoc basis has to be taken as qualifying service for grant of pension, therefore ad hoc services rendered by petitioner, before his regularization in 2003, has to be taken into account for calculating pension. Thus, he submits that writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ petition.
6. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that, in view of provision contained in Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018, service rendered after substantive appointment alone is to be taken into account as qualifying service and service rendered on contract, work charge, part time, daily wage, ad hoc and fixed salary is to be excluded. Thus, he submits that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted in view of aforesaid State Legislation. He refers to Sections 1(2), 2, 3(g & j) & Section 4 of the Act. He further submits that provisions of the said Act were not placed before the coordinate Bench, therefore, the same could not be considered in the judgment relied by the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that provisions of Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018 could not be considered in the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench.
8. Since the field is covered by Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018 and provisions of the said Act were not considered in the judgment rendered in WPSS No.441 of 2022, therefore, we refer the following questions for consideration by a Larger Bench.
(i) Whether the provision contained in Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018 would act as impediment in grant of pension for the services rendered on contract, work charge, part time, daily wages, ad hoc and fixed salary?
(ii) Whether subsequent regularization of a person appointed on contract, work charge, part time, daily wages, ad hoc and fixed salary would entitle him to pension for the entire services, including those rendered before date of his regularization/substantive appointment?
9. Registry is directed to place the file before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 03.10.2024 Navin