Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42217 of 2009 Petitioner :- Malik Ram Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Singh,Rajesh Yadav,Shailendra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent.
The claim in the instant writ petition is for the respondents being commanded to pay pension, G.P.F. and other retiral benefits to the petitioner. From the facts which are stated in the writ petition it transpires that the petitioner was engaged in the Public Works Department of the State on 01 January 1980 as a muster roll employee. As per his own disclosures, he continued to work in that capacity from the aforementioned date up to 03 May 2009. It is contended that his services came to be regularized on 28 April 2001. He retired after serving under the respondents on 31 May 2009. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to retiral benefits bearing in mind the 29 years of service that was rendered.
The claim essentially rests on the factum of regularization. However, a careful reading of the communication of 28 April 2001 establishes that the service of the petitioner was never regularized by that order which merely accorded a fresh appointment to the petitioner in ad hoc capacity in a work charged establishment. While the respondents have proceeded to compute qualifying service with effect from 28 April 2001, that seems to be clearly misconceived since the issue of pensionary benefits would be governed by the provisions made in the Civil Services Regulations as applicable in the State of U.P. as well as the Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961. The Court bears in mind the Validation Act of 2021 which now requires all employees claiming pensionary benefits to establish that they had been engaged in accordance with the applicable rules on a permanent or temporary post. That Validation Act has come to be introduced with retrospective effect from the date of enforcement of the 1961 Rules.
The Court notes that the petitioner has abjectly failed to establish that he was appointed against a temporary or permanent post. As per his own admission, he was engaged as a muster roll employee and continued in that capacity till he was engaged on an ad hoc basis in a work charged establishment. The petitioner has also failed to establish that he was at any time confirmed or regularised in service. The engagement and appointment of the petitioner purportedly in a work charged establishment is neither questioned nor assailed. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no justification to issue the writs as prayed for.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Arun K. Singh