Back
2002 Supreme(All) 514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. N. Srivastava, J.
RAJENDRA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, U. P. , LEKHA II - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 31709 Of 1991
Decided On : 04/11/2002
Ranjit Saxena, U.N.Sharma, V.N.Agarwal
Temporary and regular employees working in a Government Department in U. P. on any post in a pay scale on regular basis for ten years are entitled to pension under the Government order dated 1. 7. 1989.
Headnote:
PENSION ENTITLEMENT - Government Employee - G. O. dated 1. 7. 1989 - 1983 (47) FLR 42, JT 1993 (Supp) SC 43, 2000 (9) SCC 429 - The court discussed the entitlement of temporary and regular employees to pension under the Government order dated 1. 7. 1989 and referenced case laws to support its decision. The court emphasized that a temporary and regular employee working in a Government Department in U. P. on any post in a pay scale on regular basis for ten years is entitled to get pension. It also highlighted the definition of a regular government servant and the importance of regular appointment in determining pension entitlement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ to receive pension based on their employment history and a Government order dated 1. 7. 1989. The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for pension entitlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for pension entitlement as they had not completed 10 years of government service against any post in any pay scale.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's entitlement to pension based on their employment history and the Government order dated 1. 7. 1989.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a temporary and regular employee working in a Government Department in U. P. on any post in a pay scale on regular basis for ten years is entitled to get pension. It emphasized the definition of a regular government servant and the importance of regular appointment in determining pension entitlement.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was not entitled to receive any pension.
( 1 ) BY way of the present writ petition, the petitioner made following prayers :
(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give pension to the petitioner in pursuance of G. O. dated 1. 7. 1989 (Annexure-6 to this petition) ; (ii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which may be deemed to be just and proper under the circumstances of the case.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to Shri Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed on 12. 10. 1964 in work charge establishment and worked till 30. 12. 1991, more than ten years, as such, he is entitled to get pension. He further urged that though he was not permanent employee and was continuing as temporary employee, he is entitled to get pension under Government order dated 1. 7. 1989 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ). He further relied on the following cases also in support of his contention that unconfirmed regular employee is also entitled to get pension :
(1) D. S. Nakara v. Union of India. 1983 (47) FLR 42. (2) Bhaskar Gajanan Kajrekar v. Administrator, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors. , JT 1993 (Supp) SC 43. (3) State of Orissa and Ors. v. Harihar Satpathy and Ors. , 2000 (9) SCC 429.
( 3 ) SRI V. N. Agarwal, learned standing counsel opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioner never worked continuously for ten years as temporary/regular employee. Sri Agarwal referred paragraphs 3, 7, 8 and 12 of the counter-affidavit, which indicate that the petitioners services were terminated on 23. 7. 1977 and thereafter he was given fresh appointment on 10. 8. 1977 on his fresh application. The petitioner worked under the work charge establishment upto 9. 1. 1984 at Kalagarh on fixed scale. There was no post available at all but he worked on a fixed salary.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Agarwal, the petitioner was appointed on regular basis only on 26. 2. 1990 and retired on 31. 12. 1991 as such, he is not entitled to get pension and the case law relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable in the fact of the present case, as the petitioner never worked ten years continuously before his retirement on any post in any pay scale regularly.
( 5 ) AFTER having considered the rival contentions of the parties and perusal of material on record as well as the case law relied on by the parties, I am of the view that a temporary and regular employee working in a Government Department in U. P. on any post in a pay scale on regular basis for ten years is entitled to get pension.
( 6 ) FROM perusal of the G. O. dated 1. 7. 1989, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, Government has already taken a policy decision that Government servant, who has completed 10 years of regular service, on completing the age of superannuation is entitled to get retirement/ inability pension in the similar situation and manner like permanent Government employees.
( 7 ) THE regular Government servant means, a person working against a post carrying on a pay scale. If a person is not working against any post or is not getting the pay scale, he could not be said to be a person appointed and continuing regularly. Only regular employee, whether temporary or permanent, is entitled to get pension.
( 8 ) REGULAR appointment means the appointment made according to Rule and procedure. If against a post, a person was appointed in accordance with Rules in the procedure prescribed for government servant, his appointment is regular appointment.
( 9 ) THE paragraph 2 of Government order dated 1. 7. 1989, is being quoted below :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .
( 10 ) MY view is also supported by a judgment reported in 1989 (1) SLJ 624. If he continues as temporary employee and is not confirmed even on the date of superannuation though completed 10 years service, he is entitled for pension fixed in accordance with law.
( 11 ) MY view is supported by case law as follows.
( 12 ) THIS matter came for consideration
