The main legal point established in the judgment is that the services rendered by the petitioners as Seasonal Collection Amin cannot be ignored for extending the benefits of pension and other retiral benefits to them, and the petitioners are not governed by the New Pension Scheme.

JUDGMENT :

(Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Since the controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petitions are identical, therefore, all writ petitions are being decided together with this common judgement.

3. For convenience, the facts are being delineated from Writ-A No.4344 of 2023.

4. The petitioners through the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 28.01.2023 passed by respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Bulandshahar rejecting the representation of the petitioners for giving them the benefit of the old pension scheme.

5. The petitioners are five in number and were engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin in different tehsils in district Bulandshahar. Their services were regularised and all of them have retired. The details of all the petitioners in respect of their engagement, regularisation and retirement are given in the table below:-

6. All the petitioners since the date of their respective engagement had worked as Seasonal Collection Amin continuously till the date of their regularisation. The petitioners were paid regular pay scales which were given to regular Collection Amins and their pay scales were also revised from time to time till their appointment on the post of regular Collection Amin.

7. The petitioners after retirement submitted representation before respondent no.2 for the grant of the old pension scheme. When respondent no.2 did not pay any heed to the representation of the petitioners, petitioner no.1 preferred Writ-A No.17394 of 2022 while petitioner no. 2 to 5 preferred Writ-A No.17470 of 2022. Both the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed off by this Court by order dated 02.12.2022 directing respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners.

8. In compliance with the order passed by this Court, respondent no.2 considered the representation of each petitioner and rejected the same by order dated 28.01.2023.

9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 stating therein that petitioners before the date of their regularisation have been engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin and their engagement was only for 89 days after which their engagement came to an end and in case of further need, the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut engaged them further for a limited period, therefore, in view of Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Services for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No.1 of 2021) and sub-Rule 2 of Government Order dated 05.03.2021 and Government Order dated 14.06.2017, the services rendered by the petitioners as Seasonal Collection Amin cannot be reckoned as qualifying service for grant of Old Pension Scheme.

10. The further case is that a New Pension Scheme was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2005 and any appointment made on or after 01.04.2005 is governed by the New Pension Scheme and therefore, petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.

11. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the action of respondent no.2 in rejecting the claim of the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal. It is contended that U.P. Act No.1 of 2021 is not applicable since the services of the petitioners have been regularised in accordance with Rule 5 and Rule 17A of Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to