Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner is a retired Collection Peon. He is presently 73 years old. He has preferred this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 12.12.2008 passed by fourth respondent i.e. Up-Ziladhikari, Tehsil Sikanderpur, District Ballia, whereby the claim of the petitioner for the post retiral benefit including pension has been rejected on the ground that he was a Seasonal Collection Peon and not a Collection Peon (Temporary).

2. The petitioner claims that he was initially appointed on 1.6.1970 as a Collection Peon in District Ballia. He worked till the year 1981 with some artificial breaks. He was again appointed on 20.3.1982 as a Collection Peon (Temporary) on substantive post and worked till the date of his retirement i.e. 31 July 2002 uninterruptedly.

3. It is stated that the State Government on 1.7.1989 issued a Government Order providing therein that temporary employees, who have completed 10 years of regular service, are entitled to get all retiral benefits.

4. The association of the Collection Peons preferred Writ Petition No. 11009 of 1998 for a direction upon the concerned authorities to regularize the services of the members of the association. The said writ petition was disposed of on 19 March 1998 by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the members of the association for regularization. In the meantime, the petitioner retired, reaching the age of superannuation on 31 July 2002. When the petitioner’s representation for the post retiral benefit and pension was not considered by the competent authority, he preferred Writ Petition No. 38974 of 2008 (Awadh Bihari Shukla v. State of U.P. and others). The said writ petition was disposed of on 5 August 2008 with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner.

5. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner’s claim has been rejected by the impugned order amongst other grounds that the petitioner was not a Collection Peon (Temporary) but he was a Seasonal Collection Peon, therefore, he is not entitled for the pension and other post retiral benefits.

6. It is averred by the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by Up-Ziladhikari, who has no authority in the matter of the Seasonal Collection Peon as the appropriate authority is the District Magistrate.

7. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that in the similar circumstances, one Prasidh Narain Upadhyay had filed Writ Petition No. 53567 of 1997, which was allowed by this Court and a direction was issued to the authority concerned to make payment of the post retiral benefits to Prasidh Narain Upadhyay and the said order has been complied with. It is also averred in the writ petition that the respondents have treated the petitioner differently and he has been discriminated, inasmuch as in respect of two similarly placed persons, namely, Ram Nagina Pandey and Dhooma Singh Yadav, who were also Seasonal Collection Peons, they had also filed Writ Petition No. 18230 of 2000, both persons retired in the year 2005. This Court vide order dated 28 April 2006 had issued direction to the District Magistrate to consider the grievance of the petitioners therein. The District Magistrate has granted the pension and other benefits. A copy of the order of the District Magistrate is on record as annexure-8 to the writ petition.

8. This Court had directed the Standing Counsel to produce the original record of the petitioner. In compliance thereof the original record has been produced.

9. A perusal of the service record of the petitioner, it is evident that in his service record, he has been shown as Temporary but such entry has been struck off by different ink without any initial and in place of Temporary the word Seasonal Collection Peon, i.e. Samyik Sangrah Chaprasi has been mentioned in one of the column. The word “Temporary” has been struck off and Samyik Sangrah Chaprasi has been transcribed.

10