Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Through The Secretary ... vs Sunita Sharma And Another on 11 June, 2020
Bench: Govind Mathur, Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 181 of 2020 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Through The Secretary Secondary Education Department, Government Of U.P. And 4 Others Respondent :- Sunita Sharma And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli Counsel for Respondent :- Shantanu Khare Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal is barred by limitation from 408 days. An application is preferred under section 5 of Limitation Act to have condonation of the same. Ignoring the delay in filing the appeal, we have looked into merits of the case.
The respondent-petitioner entered in service of the respondents being appointed as Assistant teacher at J.A.S. Inter College, Khurja on 21.06.1996. The appointment so given was against a permanent vacancy but in adhoc capacity. The service of the petitioner-respondent came to be regularized w.e.f 22.03.2016 and on 31.03.2018 she came to be retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The appellant-respondent denied the pensionary benefits to the respondent-petitioner on the count of deficiency in qualifying service. As per the appellant-respondent, only a regular employee is entitled to have pensionary benefits and as such the respondent-petitioner being regularized in service on 22.03.2016 remained in regular employment only for a period of about two years, hence is not entitled for pensionary benefits.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the employer, the respondent-petitioner preferred a petition for writ that came to be accepted under the judgement dated 20.12.2018. Learned Single Bench while accepting the petition for writ, relied upon Rule 19(b) of Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institution Employees Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, 1964. Rule aforesaid prescribes that continuous temporary or officiating service without interruption followed by confirmation on or any other post, shall also be recorded for determining qualifying service.
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent-petitioner was working in an adhoc capacity and, therefore, her service does not fall within the category of temporary or officiating service and as such Rule 19 (b) is having no application. We do not find any merit with the arguments advanced. As already stated the appointment was given to the petitioner against a permanent vacancy with assertion in the order of appointment as "adhoc". However, the appointment though said to be on ad-hoc basis but that continued for two decades and ultimately resulted into regularization in service. The appointment, as such, was not a stop gap arrangement but in temporary capacity. The same falls under the categories given in Rule 19(b) of 1964 for the purpose of computing qualifying service.
In view of whatever stated above, we do not find any wrong with the order passed by learned Single Bench, hence, the appeal is bereft of merit, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.6.2020
Gaurav
(Ramesh Sinha, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)