Allahabad High Court
Sri Pal Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Revenue Deptt. ... on 16 October, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69716 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4028 of 2014 Petitioner :- Sri Pal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt.Lko.Andors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:
"(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing thereby the part of impugned orders dated 30.07.2013 and 21.11.2013 by means of which the payment of consequential benefits of services since 5.6.1986 uptill date i.e. relevant monetary benefit of increment and revised pay scale etc. have been rejected by the opposite party No.3 and 2 contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.
(II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to pay the consequential benefits since 05.06.1986 uptil date i.e. relevant monetary benefits of increment and revised pay scale etc to the petitioner."
3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner had been selected for appointment as Collection Amin in the year 1986. One Pratap Narain Pandey, of the same select list as the petitioner, filed Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001; In re: Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was allowed on 19.08.2006 and he was directed to be treated to be in a regular service since 05.06.1986 on the post of Collection Amin. A copy of the judgement in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra) has been filed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.
4. The petitioner claiming himself to be similarly circumstanced, filed Writ Petition No.8065 (S/S) of 2003; In re: Sri Pal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others. This Court vide judgement and order dated 30.10.2012, a copy of which is Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, disposed of the writ petition by holding that the petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of the judgement in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra). In pursuance thereof, the competent authority vide order dated 30.07.2013, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, considering the judgement of this Court as well as the judgement of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra) directed that the petitioner would be treated as a regular Collection Amin w.e.f. 05.06.1986 and would be entitled for seniority and other benefits.
5. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was given regular appointment as Collection Amin vide order dated 30.07.2013, which is a part of Annexure No.1 to the writ petition (page No.21 & 22).
6. The petitioner subsequently retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2019, but he was not granted the pension and other attendance benefits including the benefit of Assured Career Pay Scheme (A.C.P.). He was constrained to file Writ Petition No.25360 (S/S) of 2021; In re: Deependra Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others. This Court vide judgement and order dated 01.11.2021 required the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the order impugned dated 30.11.2021, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, has been passed indicating that as the petitioner was made regular vide order dated 29.05.2012 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2020 as such he does not have the requisite qualifying service of being given the pension and as he has only been given the benefit of seniority w.e.f. 05.06.1986,consequently, he is only having a service of 8 years, 3 months and 25 days and keeping in view the Civil Service Regulations 474-A as the regular service of 10 years is required, consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits including pension.
7. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the Writ Court vide judgement and order dated 30.10.2012 had granted the benefit to the petitioner of the judgement of this Court in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra) and in pursuance thereof, the competent authority vide order dated 30.07.2013 had held the petitioner as being a regular Collection Amin w.e.f. 05.06.1986 along with seniority and in pursuance thereof a formal order for his regular appointment dated 30.07.2013 was passed as such, the petitioner would be entitled for all benefits w.e.f. 05.06.1986 considering the order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the competent authority, which order still stands good as of date and the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is only having 8 years and few months of service on account of his regularization in May, 2012 cannot be said to be an order which wipes out the previous service of the petitioner rendered since 05.06.1986 keeping in view the judgement of the Writ Court dated 21.11.2011 and the order of the competent authority dated 19.05.2012.
9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit, argues that as the petitioner has only been regularized in May, 2012 and he retired on 30.09.2020, consequently, the petitioner does not have 10 years of service so as to entail payment of pension and other retiral dues and further as the petitioner is having only 8 years and few months of service subsequent to his regularization he is also not entitled for the benefit of the A.C.P.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record, it emerges that with respect to a person similarly circumstanced, namely Pratap Narain Pandey, a judgement had been passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001; In re: Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, a copy of which is Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, whereby this Court held Pratap Narain Pandey to be a regular Collection Amin in service since 05.06.1986. The petitioner claiming the similar benefit as that of Pratap Narain Pandey had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.8362 (S/S) of 2011 and this Court vide judgement and order dated 21.11.2011 held the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgement of this Court in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra). In pursuance thereof, the competent authority vide order dated 19.05.2012 granted the benefit of the judgement of this Court to the petitioner by treating him as a regular Collection Amin since 05.06.1986 with attendant benefit of seniority. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2020. The respondents have not granted pension and other benefits of A.C.P. on the ground that as the services of the petitioner have only been regularized in May, 2012 and he has retired on 30.09.2020, consequently, he does not have the requisite 10 years service, which is required for payment of pension and other retiral dues and also does not have requisite service for grant of the A.C.P. This is the reasoning, which emerges from a perusal of the order impugned dated 30.11.2021.
11. A perusal of the aforesaid order would indicate that the respondents have patently erred in passing the said order inasmuch as they have failed to consider that the petitioner already stands regularized by the competent authority vide order dated 19.05.2012 w.e.f. 05.06.1986 with benefit of seniority. Thus, the entire service rendered by the petitioner or even if not rendered w.e.f. 05.06.1986 yet considering the judgement of the Writ Court dated 21.11.2011, once the said benefit has been extended by the competent authority vide order dated 19.05.2012 and admittedly the said order has attained finality and the petitioner, though regularized by means of a formal order dated 31.05.2012, yet considering the order dated 19.05.2012 which grants all benefits to the petitioner as a regular employee w.e.f. 05.06.1986, consequently, the same entails counting of the entire services of the petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986 and thus it cannot be said that the petitioner only had 8 years and odd months of service once the entire service of the petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986 till his retirement on 30.09.2020 is to be counted for all practical purposes more particularly when the respondents themselves have granted the benefit of seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed.
13. The part of the order impugned dated 30.07.2013, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 and order dated 21.11.2013, contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, are quashed. The respondents are directed to count the entire period of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 05.06.1986 considering the judgement of the Writ Court dated 30.10.2012 and the order of the competent authority dated 30.07.2013. The said period of service shall be counted for all purposes including payment of retrial dues to the petitioner, which would also include pension. The petitioner would also be entitled for benefit of A.C.P. flowing from counting of his services w.e.f. 05.06.1986 with all consequential benefits.
14. Let the order be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 16.10.2024 RKM.