Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3660 of 2021
Petitioner :- Raj Bahadur Pastor
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bharat Pratap Singh,Vivek Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the averments made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 1989 on 1.1.1989 and worked on daily wages till 3.2.1993 and thereafter in terms of the order passed by this Court on 21.2.1997, the petitioner continue to work and were sanctioned regular pay scale of Junior Engineer. It is claimed that ultimately the services of the petitioner were regularized on 31.12.2018 and the petitioner retired from service on 30.9.2020 after completing the service. He alleges that the retirement benefits of the petitioner are not being paid solely on the ground that the petitioner has not completed the qualifying service of 10 years treating the services of the petitioner from 31.12.2018 (the date of regularization).
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the law is very well settled that the services rendered prior to the date of regularization on a substantive post ought to be considered for calculating the qualifying service, which has not been done in the case of the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P.; 2019 (10) SCC 516 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Bhanu Pratap Sharma (Special Appeal No. 97 of 2021, judgment dated 9.6.2021 to argue that the said question is no more res integra. The said two judgments have considered the scope of qualifying service and have clearly held that the qualifying service rendered prior to the regularization have to be considered while computing the qualifying service.
In view of the said two judgments, I have no hesitation in holding that the services rendered by the petitioner from 1989 up to 31.12.2018 have to be considered as qualifying service for purpose of computation in payment of pension and retiral dues, even if the services rendered from 1.1.1989 are not taken into consideration, the services rendered w.e.f. 3.9.1997, when the pay scale was granted to the petitioner are taken into account to accede the request of qualifying service required for payment of pension and other benefits.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with direction that the respondents shall take decision with regard to the payment of pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner calculating the services rendered by the petitioner from 1.1.1989 up to 31.12.2018 also while computing the qualifying service. The action of payment of consequential benefits shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the concerned respondent.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021
S. Rahman