IMPORTANT POINT
Employees absorbed into a government department under specific terms cannot later claim benefits from prior service if they accepted the new terms knowingly.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Rural Development, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, rejecting the petitioners' claim for the provision of pension contribution and leave encashment contribution in order to enable the said petitioners to claim retirement pension and leave encashment.

2. Heard Mr. K.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

3. The first petitioner, Dhananjay Mishra and the second petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Rai, are the two petitioners, who have instituted this writ petition. The facts of their cases are different and this Court would, therefore, venture to set them out separately, at least so far as these are different.

Facts relating the first petitioner Dhananjay Mishra's case

4. Dhananjay Mishra, petitioner No. 1, was initially appointed a Junior Clerk on 12.02.1980 with a Soil Conservation Project in District Gorakhpur, called the Gandak Project. He was transferred and posted to District Deoria under the same project. By an order dated 31.10.1988 passed by the Deputy Director, Gandak Project, Padrauna, District Deoria, the first petitioner was confirmed as a Senior Clerk w.e.f. 01.12.1982. It is the first petitioner's case that while confirming him in service, there was a mention in the letter of confirmation to the effect that from the date of confirmation, the employee will be entitled to pension in accordance with Civil Service Regulations, and service rendered prior to confirmation, would be included for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying service.

5. The Gandak Project in the State was abolished and employees thereof, who were surplus, were required to be absorbed in Government Departments, putting certain conditions to it. These conditions inter alia were that the benefit of absorption would be available to employees appointed prior to 01.10.1986, and further, about the applicability of rules relating to government servants with regard to general provident fund, leave encashment, pension etc., with effect from the date of appointment of an employee absorbed, in a particular Government Department. This arrangement was made vide Government dated 26.04.1991. The Government Order dated 26.04.1991 made provision for the absorption of surplus employees of the abolished Gandak Project, in various Departments of the Government. However, according to the first petitioner, for reasons best known to the respondents, he was absorbed not in any Government Department, but in the District Rural Development Agency (for short, 'DRDA') by the Chief Development Officer/ Executive Director, DRDA, Mau vide order dated 05.05.1990. About the DRDA, it is said by Mishra that they were a registered society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was an Establishment of the Government. The Chief Development Officer of the District was its Executive Director at the District Headquarters. This Establishment was set up to implement the Rural Development Programme of the Government. The DRDA was a society, as already said, but completely under the control of the State Government. There were no rules framed governing service conditions of employees of the DRDA. Therefore, a circular dated 17.03.1994 was issued by the Government, mentioning therein that the service conditions of employees, not provided in the circular, would be governed by such rules, regulations and orders, as apply ordinarily to serving government servants.

6. It is the first petitioner's case that though a surplus employee of the Gandak Project, he was not absorbed in a Government Department, but in the DRDA. Deduction towards GPF and Group Insurance was not being made from his salary and that of other employees as well. Therefore, the first petitioner and similarly circumstanced employees, raised their grievance before the Joint Development Commissioner, Gorakhpur, who fo