Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.
Ram Bahore And Another – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
WRIT A No.17061 of 2010
Decided on : 09-12-2020
U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 – Rule 3 – Appointment – Regularization into Services – Present writ petition has been filed seeking reliefs issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioners the arrears of salary treating their appointment in the year 1981 and 1990 respectively which was approved by the then Chief Development Officer after refixing their salary on the basis of 6th Pay Commission and also to pay the arrears of salary for the period from 1995 till the year 2003 after re-fixing their salary on the basis of 6th Pay Commission – Issue any other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case –
Finding of the Court:
Claim of the petitioners for arrears of balance as regular employees from the date of their initial appointments could not be accepted because they have already been made payment as daily wagers and now they have been regularised and after that they were getting regular pay scales, therefore, services of the petitioners as daily wagers could only be counted as qualified service only for the benefit of pension because prior to their regularisations they were working in the capacity of work-charge employees – Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get all the pensionary benefits after taking into the consideration the services rendered by them as daily wagers, prior to their regularisation, as also the seniority from the date of engagements as daily wagers; but they shall not be entitled for the arrears of balance from the date of their appointments on daily wage posts since they have already been paid wages of such period. –
Result: Writ Petition Disposed off
JUDGMENT :
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
(ii) Issue any other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioners were appointed as Chowkidar on daily wages (Class IV post) in the year 1981 and 1990 respectively. Their services were orally terminated in the year 1995. Against the said order of termination, petitioners preferred Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 22522 of 1995, which was finally disposed off vide order dated 29.4.1999 with the direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners on Class IV post. Petitioners accordingly, made their representation for their regularisation and also for payment of balance salary. It is further alleged that the respondents against the order dated 29.4.1999 preferred Special Leave to Appeal (civil) No. 336 of 2000, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.1.2000. Thereafter, respondents is said to have preferred Special Appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.4.1999, which was also dismissed vide order dated 2.4.2003. Thereafter, an order for regularisation of the services of the petitioners was passed by the respondents on 2.9.2003. After regularisation of their services, petitioners demanded salary as well as seniority since 1981 to 1990 respectively. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has been superannuated from service on 30.4.2017 and petitioner no. 2 has died during pendency of the writ petition. Hence this writ petition.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that at the time of regularisation i.e. 2.9.2003, they have completed 22 and 13 years of their services respectively and as such their seniority may be counted from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 1981 and 1990 respectively. They also demanded the arrears of salary of balance from the above respective dates of their appointments. Further submission is that due to the non actions of respondents, the petitioners are made to suffer recurring financial loss for no fault on the part of the petitioners. In support of his arguments, petitioners relied upon the various judgments of this Court as well as of Apex Court, viz. Writ Petition No. 11630 of 2018, (Dr Ramakant Tiwari Vs State of UP and others) decided on 14.05.2018; Writ A No. 18117 of 2018, (Muneshwer Dutt Mishra Vs State of UP and 4 others) decided on 6.9.2018; 2019(12) ADJ, 547 (Gulaichi Devi Vs State of UP and others); Civil Appeal No. (5) 10806 of 2017 (Habib Khan Vs State of UP and others) decided on 23.08.2017; and Civil Appeal No. 3348 of 2015, Secretary, Minor Irrigation Deptt and RES Vs Narendra Kumar Tripathi decided on 7.4.2015.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, services of the petitioners were regularised w.e.f. 2.9.2003 on the class IV posts and they were made payment admissible to the regular employees and thereafter they were also made payment of revised pay scales and also the payment of arrears of Rs. 48650/-and Rs. 49033/-respectively, vide Annexure CA6 & 7 filed by the State in regard to the payment of arrears made vide letter dated 13.01.2009 passed by Chief Development Officer, Basti.
5. The petitioners have submitted that they are entitled for payment from their initial appointments as daily wagers i.e. from 1981 and 1990 respectively, thereafter they are en
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
