The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's entire service period, including temporary promotion and regularization, had to be considered for pension, and he was entitled to full pensionary and other retiral benefits from the date his juniors were promoted, despite the delay in his promotion due to unavailability of A.C.R.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for State-respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :-

“v) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by respondent No. 4.

vi) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the service of petitioner from the date of his promotion (17.08.1999) on the post of Assistant Development Office (Cooperative) as qualifying service for pension and release the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner.”

3. Pleadings are exchanged between the parties. With the consent of counsels for parties, writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor in District Ballia on 21.07.1978 under Schedule Caste Category. In the seniority list of Cooperative Supervisors, petitioner was at Serial No. 699 while some juniors to petitioner, who were at Serial Nos. 702, 704, 709 & 710 in the same seniority list, were promoted from the post of Cooperative Supervisor to the post of Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). Petitioner was not promoted in lack of Annual Confidential Report (in short, ‘A.C.R.’) compelling him to file Writ Petition No. 42401 of 1998 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 08.01.1999 directing respondent-authorities to consider the grievance of petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner has filed representation, which was considered by respondent-authorities and petitioner was temporarily promoted on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) vide order dated 17.08.1999 subject to confirmation of promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is next submitted that case of petitioner never placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.P.C.’) and petitioner has retired from service on 31.07.2014. On the date of his retirement, order dated 31.07.2014 was passed mentioning therein that service rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis cannot be considered for grant of pensionary and other retiral benefits. In the very same order, it is accepted that Officers, who are junior to petitioner have been given the said benefits. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.07.2014 by filing Writ-A No. 50207 of 2014, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2020 with direction to reconsider the case of petitioner in light of fact that juniors to the petitioner have been provided all benefits, which are claimed by the petitioner. During the pendency of Writ-A No. 50207 of 2014, after retirement of petitioner, D.P.C. was conducted on 04.01.2017 by U.P. Public Service Commission and promotion of petitioner was confirmed and his service was also regularized against the vacancy of the recruitment year 2007-08. A direction was also sought vide letter dated 27.02.2019 from respondent No. 2-Registrar Cooperative Societies about the payment of post retiral benefits to the petitioner on the basis of regularization.

5. In compliance of order of this Court dated 04.11.2020, petitioner moved representation dated 11.11.2020 along with certified copy of order for release of pensionary and other retiral benefits considering his promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. Complying order dated 04.11.2020 passed in Writ-A No. 50207 of 2014, impugned order dated 07.01.2021 has been passed rejecting the claim of petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner assailed the impugned order basically on two grounds. He firstly submitted that for the purpose of retiral benefits, service of petitioner is governed by the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1961’), therefore, qualifying service includes continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government