Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 684

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Gorakh Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 12955 of 2023
Decided On : 01-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi
For the Respondent: CSC,Vijay Kumar Dubey

IMPORTANT POINT
Continuous service, including periods as a daily-wager, must be considered for pension eligibility under the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika Non Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Regulations, 1984, as supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Prem Singh.

Headnote:
MANDAMUS - PENSION AND RETIRAL BENEFITS - Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika Non Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Regulations, 1984; Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021; Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh - The court discussed the applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika Non Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Regulations, 1984, which defines 'qualifying service' and determines eligibility for pension and other benefits. The court interpreted the provisions of the Regulations and the Supreme Court's ruling in Prem Singh, establishing that continuous service, including periods as a daily-wager, should be considered for pension eligibility. The court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to reckon his entire service for retirement benefits, despite pending criminal cases, which only affect the timing of pension and gratuity payments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Tax Moharrir at Nagar Panchayat, claimed pension and retiral benefits after serving for over 32 years, including 9 years of regularized service. He argued that his entire service should count towards pension eligibility based on government orders and previous court rulings, despite the respondents denying his claims due to pending criminal cases and the nature of his service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to have his entire service, including the period as a daily-wager, counted towards his qualifying service for pension and gratuity. The court emphasized that the Regulations of 1984 and the principles established in Prem Singh support this entitlement, despite the respondents' claims to the contrary.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive retirement pension considering his entire period of service, including daily-wage employment. 2. Whether the pending criminal cases against the petitioner affect his entitlement to pension and gratuity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of 'qualifying service' in the Regulations of 1984 allows for the inclusion of service rendered as a daily-wager when followed by regularization. The principles established in Prem Singh apply, allowing for the reckoning of all continuous service for pension eligibility, irrespective of the nature of employment prior to regularization.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed in part, directing the respondents to sanction a retirement pension and gratuity to the petitioner, considering his entire service. The court stipulated that if criminal trials are pending, only a provisional pension would be paid until the conclusion of those trials, after which final benefits would be determined.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This writ petition has been instituted praying that a mandamus be issued to the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Magahar, District Sant Kabir Nagar to grant the petitioner his pension and other post retiral benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed a Tax Moharrir on 01.04.1989 by the Nagar Panchayat, Magahar, District Sant Kabir Nagar (for short, 'the Nagar Panchayat'), when it was a notified area, on a daily-wage of Rs.30/- per day. The petitioner joined with the Nagar Panchayat, the day he was appointed. The case of the petitioner is that, according to the Government Orders dated 08.01.1992 and 03.02.1992, the petitioner was entitled to be regularized. He draws the Court's attention to the Government Order dated 08.01.1992, which provides that employees working on daily-wages, who have been appointed before 11.10.1989 and completed three years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, are entitled to be regularized in service.

3. It is the petitioner's case that the Government Order aforesaid provides that those who have not completed three years' service, their services will not be terminated and they would be absorved in future as regular employees. The petitioner asserts that he has been in continuous employ of the Nagar Panchayat from the date of his appointment, to wit, 01.04.1989, until his retirement. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to be regularized pursuant to the Government Orders last mentioned, but was not. He represented his case with the Nagar Panchayat seeking regularization, but was paid no heed.

4. The petitioner points out that there were a number of permanent posts lying vacant with the Nagar Panchayat, but the petitioner, whenever he raised his claim to be regularized in service, was given verbal assurance and nothing more. He was told that he would be accommodated in future as there was no permanent vacancy available in the establishment of the Nagar Panchayat. Two persons, however, were appointed in the Nagar Panchayat establishment by the then Officer-in-Charge, Nagar Panchayat, Basant Ram, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khalilabad, then part of District Basti. The aforesaid illegal appointment, according to the petitioner, was made because the appointee was a true brother of one Ram Poojan Dubey, an employee of the Nagar Panchayat and other man appointed, was a true brother of the then Officer-in-Charge of the Nagar Panchayat, Basant Ram. Basant Ram, being the Appointing Authority, made both these illegal appointments. These appointments were to the petitioner's prejudice, whose claim for regularization was pending without consideration. It is pointed out that the services of the two men, who were inducted illegally, to wit, Jai Shankar Dubey and Ram Kewal, have been regularized as Clerks in the establishment of the Nagar Panchayat w.e.f. 25.05.1992.

5. The petitioner and other similarly circumstanced employees represented against the above illegal appointments and regularization of the aforesaid employees, which led the Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti to address a letter to the Director, Local Bodies, bringing to the Director's notice the illegal appointments made in the Nagar Panchayat. It was reported that the appointments of Jai Shankar Dubey and Ram Kewal were contrary to Government Orders. There were various other illegalities that had fouled these appointments. Nothing in consequence happened and the petitioner represented again to the Commissioner, Basti Division to consider his case for regularization. The Commissioner found the petitioner's claim to be worthy, but nothing came of it.

6. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.279 of 2000, claiming relief of regularization in service, based on the Government Orders introducing a regularization scheme. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 22.02.2011. The petitioner carried a special appeal to the Division B