Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, J.
Kallu Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others – Respondents
Writ A No.5483 of 2022
Decided on : 18-05-2022
PENSION - EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE - U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 - The court discussed the issue of counting the period spent as a daily wage employee towards pensionable service. The court referred to various judgments including Prem Singh v. State of U.P., Kaushal Kishore Chaubey v. State of U.P., The State of Gujarat and others v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, and Awadhesh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. The court held that the period spent as a daily wage employee should be considered for pensionable service if the employee is retiring from an establishment with retirement benefits. The court rejected the argument that the employees of the Local Development Authority should not be entitled to the same benefits as employees of local self-governing bodies. The court quashed the order of the respondent authority and directed the calculation and payment of the petitioner's pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired employee of the Allahabad Development Authority, sought pensionary benefits based on his past services as a daily wage Supervisor, which were regularized by the respondent Local Authority. The respondent rejected the petitioner's claim for pension, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the period spent as a daily wage employee should be counted towards pensionable service if the employee is retiring from an establishment with retirement benefits. The court rejected the argument that employees of the Local Development Authority should not be entitled to the same benefits as employees of local self-governing bodies. The court quashed the order of the respondent authority and directed the calculation and payment of the petitioner's pension.
Issues: The main issue was whether the period spent as a daily wage employee should be considered for pensionable service, and whether employees of the Local Development Authority should be entitled to the same benefits as employees of local self-governing bodies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the period spent as a daily wage employee should be counted towards pensionable service if the employee is retiring from an establishment with retirement benefits. The court rejected the argument that employees of the Local Development Authority should not be entitled to the same benefits as employees of local self-governing bodies.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the respondent authority and directed the calculation and payment of the petitioner's pension.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent nos. 2 & 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent.
2. Amendment application is allowed, let the amendment be carried out forthwith.
3. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for calling the records and quashing the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by respondent no. 2, impugned herein this petition.
4. Instructions obtained by Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent nos. 2 & 3 placed before the Court, are taken on record. Since the instructions are complete and learned counsel for the respondent submits that those were the ultimate instructions and the matter may be decided, the Court proceeds to decide the matter finally.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has retired from Allahabad Development Authority on 28.02.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation and claims that even though he was initially engaged by the respondent Development Authority as a daily wage Supervisor but he is entitled for pensionary benefits on the ground that once his services came to be regularized by respondent Local Authority on 01.02.2011, his past services rendered as a daily-wager in the establishment w.e.f. 01.06.1989 were liable to be taken into account towards pensionable service for the purpose of making him entitled for pension.
6. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the factual position with regard to his continuance in the establishment on daily wage basis until his regularization in the year 2011, is not disputed and even if he is taken by the respondents to be in service as Supervisor on daily wage basis prior to his regularization as per order impugned passed by the respondent no. 2, the respondent has manifestly erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for pension by taking a stand contrary to the settled legal position emerging out from the various authorities of this Court and Supreme Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Prem Singh v. State of U.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516, The State of Gujarat and others v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.-1109 of 2022) decided on 18th February, 2022 and the judgment of this Court in Special Appeal (Def.) No. 1278 of 2020, Chetram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others and that of a coordinate bench of this Court in Kaushal Kishore Chaubey and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others (Writ-A No. 5817 of 2020) decided on 08.10.2021 and also a judgment of this very bench in Awadhesh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and 4 others in Writ A No. 2449 of 2022 (decided on 04.03.2022).
8. Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that as per the instructions obtained by him, the period during which the petitioner was working as work charge/ daily wage employee that could not have been taken into account for determination of pensionable service. Sri Singh argues that factual and legal position in the local development authority differs and cannot be equated with local bodies created and constituted under the Act of 1916 and 1959 and so those judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the authorities cited before this court, I find that the issue is no more res integra. The temporary service, service spent as work charge employee, service spent on fixed pay or on day to day basis by employees, if they continued in service on the date of regularization, for the purposes of pension such period deserves to be counted to make service pensionable if otherwise pension is admissible to the employees of the establishment in question.
10. In this case, there is no dispute that petitioner has retired from establishment to which pension is admissible. However, in order to
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period spent as a daily wage employee should be counted towards pensionable service if the employee is retiring from an establishment with....
Pension scheme-petitioners having admittedly received the entire CPF amount along with the due interest without any demur or protest, upon their retirement, they cannot be permitted to retract now at....
Employees of subordinate bodies like TUDA are not entitled to enhanced superannuation age benefits of State employees, as they are not funded by the State's Consolidated Fund.
Service periods before regularization can impact pension eligibility, but total qualifying service of 20 years is mandatory per specific retirement rules.
The Odisha Development Authorities (Retirement Benefit of the Employees) Rules, 2015 are declared ultra vires, affirming the right of employees appointed prior to 01.01.2005 to receive pension benefi....
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
