Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13963 of 2021 Petitioner :- Suresh Chand Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner's claim for inclusion of his ad-hoc service rendered from 1987 to 1997 is required to be considered by the competent authority with reference to rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 read with The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Services for Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020 followed by enactment of rules in that regard.
It transpires that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in Writ Petition No. 9396 of 2021 along with connected petitions and after examining the statutory provisions, as also the applicable judgments, the aspects which requires consideration by the State Government has been crystallized in following words:-
''The question of service discharged in a temporary or ad hoc capacity followed by regularisation and whether such periods are liable to be included would also have to be necessarily examined in the backdrop of whether the engagement had been made against a permanent or temporary post that was available as also whether the procedure as prescribed under the relevant service rules had been adhered to.
Ultimately all the issues which are noticed and enunciated above would merit consideration before the respondents evaluate the claims of the individual petitioners here. The Court is of the firm opinion that a claim for pensionary benefits cannot be negatived solely on the basis of a mere reiteration of the Validating Act having been introduced. The respondents would have to necessarily evaluate such claims bearing in mind the following questions which would arise:-
A. Whether the service rendered in temporary, ad hoc, or officiating capacity was one which was discharged against a permanent or temporary post;
B. Whether the appointment was made in accordance with the provisions made in the prevalent service rules;
C. Whether such service can be excluded notwithstanding the provisions made in the proviso to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules;
D. Whether the service rendered in a work-charged establishment followed by regularisation can be legally excluded while computing qualifying service;
E. Whether such service was performed in connection with work which was regular and perennial and the engagement in a work charged establishment was a mere ruse to deny benefits of long service.
All these and other aspects would merit further examination by the respondents before ruling upon the claims of the petitioners here for grant of pensionary benefits. For the aforesaid purpose, the matters shall stand remitted to the competent authority under the respondents to reevaluate the claim of the petitioners here in accordance with the observations made hereinabove. The exercise of reconsideration may be concluded with expedition and preferably within a period of 3 months of the date of presentation of a duly authenticated copy of this order.
The writ petitions shall stand disposed of in the above terms."
Since the claim of petitioner for inclusion of above period has not been adverted to, in light of the applicable provisions of law as such it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition with the direction upon respondent no.3 to accord consideration to petitioner's claim, in light of the above observations, by passing a reasoned order within a period of four months.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 Abhishek Singh