Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4646 of 2016 Petitioner :- Ram Dayal Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Singh Bohra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Bhumi Sanrakshan Nirikshak on 14.02.1974 in Agriculture Department and sent for training. After completion of training, vide order dated 10.09.1974, he was posted at Bhuwali. Thereafter from 15.08.1978 to 15.07.1994, petitioner was posted at different units of Soil Conservation under the administrative control of Commissioner & Administration, Sharda Sahayak Samadesh, Kshetra Vikas Pariyojna, Lucknow. By means of order dated 25.06.1994 of Commissioner & Administration, Sharda Sahayak Samadesh, Kshetra Vikas Pariyojna, Lucknow, the petitioner was sent on deputation in Uttar Pradesh Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Limited and submitted his joining on 21.07.1994 and by order dated 13.09.2000 of Joint Managing Director, Sharda Sahayak Samadesh, Kshetra Vikas Pariyojna, Lucknow, he was repatriated in his parent department in the office of Commissioner & Administration, Sharda Sahayak Samadesh, Kshetra Vikas Pariyojna, Lucknow. After being relieved on 13.09.2000 by the Project Manager, Uttar Pradesh Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Limited, Jaunpur, he again submitted his joining in the office of Commissioner & Administration, Sharda Sahayak Samadesh, Kshetra Vikas Pariyojna, Lucknow, on 12.12.2000. Thereafter he was posted at different places and lastly retired from service on 30.09.2011 as Assistant Bhumi Sanrakshan Nirikshak from the office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Soil Conservation Office, Mahoba.
These facts are not disputed by learned Standing Counsel.
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even after retirement on 30.09.2011 till date, he has not been given any post retiral benefits including pension, gratuity and GPF etc. and for that he had approached authorities, but of no consequence. Therefore, he sent a representation dated 27.09.2012 to Director of Agriculture for payment of post retiral benefits. After receiving the said letter, Deputy Director of Agriculture (Training), U.P. has written letter dated 25.10.2012 to the petitioner asking him to inform that under which Officer, he was retired and further whether he was informed about the retirement by the concerned Officer or not, if he was informed, a copy of the same shall be made available. The petitioner has replied the said letter and submitted the required documents as desired by the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Training) U.P.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further invited attention of this Court to Annexure-4 to the writ petition which is letter dated 21.03.2012 written by District Land Conservation Officer ( Rashtriya Jalagam), Mahoba to Additional Director of Agriculture and in that letter, it is stated that original records of service including service book of the petitioner is missing and in want of the same, fixation of the pension is not possible and he further sought instructions from the Higher Officer for payment of pension, gratuity and GPF etc.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that several correspondence has been made but till date his pension etc. has not been paid to him though he retired from service on 30.09.2011.
Vide order dated 03.02.2016, this Court has granted time to learned Standing Counsel to file short counter affidavit and in compliance thereof a short counter affidavit has been filed, which is already available on record. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the service records including service book of the petitioner have not been made available in the Office of Soil Conservation Office, Mahoba, therefore, his post retiral benefit could not be paid to him.
On being query raised by the Court that who is responsible to maintain the service records of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel could not satisfy the Court and in fact, he was not able to answer the query and not only this, the reason which is mentioned in the counter affidavit is that service book of the petitioner is not available and he has also not submitted in the office, therefore, pension, gratuity and GPF etc. could not be paid to him, is not good at all.
I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This fact is very much clear that the petitioner was made suffer for such a long time and till date he has not been paid a single penny with regard to the post retiral benefits for a reason of missing of service book for which, Department itself is responsible.
It is the responsibility of the respondents to maintain and secure the service book of petitioner. It is also not the case of respondents in counter affidavit that petitioner is responsible for missing of his service book. Further, in counter affidavit, there is no allegation of any type against the petitioner.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are directed to prepare the service records/service book of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order on the basis of available records and further directed to pay all the post retiral benefits of the petitioner within two months along with bank interest rate available on fixed deposit for the period in which the post retiral dues was not paid.
The writ petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 Sartaj