Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 53217 of 2013 Petitioner :- Rameshwar Dayal Gangwar Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- R.N.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition appears to have been filed under a misconceive apprehension that the services rendered by the petitioner on substantive basis would not be counted for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits to him. A prayer is made to count petitioner's services from 03.01.1989 to 31.12.2008 also for the purposes of payment of pension and post retiral benefits.
Facts admitted in the counter affidavit of the respondents are that the petitioner was selected as Cooperative Supervisor by the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Services Board and he was appointed as such. Petitioner worked as Cooperative Supervisor from 01.06.1978 to 31.08.1984 at Budaun and thereafter from 01.09.1984 to 04.01.1989 at Pilibhit. It appears that the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II for a period of 90 days.
An issue arose as to whether petitioner was entitled to be absorbed on the promoted post and the matter was brought before this Court in Writ Petition No. 39319 of 1993. The writ petition was ultimately disposed off by this Court on 16th February, 2012 with a direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the promoted post of Assistant Development Officer Cooperative from the date his juniors were regularized.
A consequential order has been passed by the Addl. Registrar (Administration) absorbing the petitioner on the promoted post against vacancy occurring in the year 1995-96. A consequential order determining the petitioner's pay has also been brought on record. Petitioner's pension has also been fixed on 12th February, 2013. It is not an issue that the petitioner superannuated on 31st December, 2008.
Since the petitioner's services were substantive from the very initial stage, as he was appointed on the recommendation of the Institutional Services Board, his working from very initial stages was liable to be counted towards determination of his retiral benefits. This is what appears to have been done also.
The writ petition appears to have been filed on a misconceived notion that the period from 1989 to 2008 would not be counted for the purposes of determining his retiral benefits. It is otherwise not shown that the petitioner's pension and retiral benefits had not been fixed correctly.
In such view of the matter, as petitioner has already been granted benefit which is due to him, no interference is called for in the writ petition.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
It is, however, provided that in case there is any issue left with regard to the correct fixation of his pension etc., it would be open to the petitioner to represent his grievance before the authority concerned, who shall deal with it in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Pkb/