Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12603 of 2024 Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶1Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶2By means of present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: "1.ISSUE a writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the opposite party No.2 contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition.

¶2ISSUE, a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite parties to add/ count the petitioner's services rendered by him as seasonal collection Amin w.e.f 6.9.1989 till his regularization and give him pensionery benefits in the light of the Judgment and order dated

07.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.(s) 6118 of 2024 Anand Prakesh Mani Tripathi versus state of U.P. & Ors and judgment and order dated

06.09.2021 passed in Writ A No.41962 of 2016 Brij Mohan Sharma & 3 ors) and judgment and order dated 08.10.2021 passed in Writ A no. 58 17 of 2020 Kaushal Kishore Chaubey Versus State of U.P. and order dated 17.01.2023 passed in Writ-A No.8158 of 2006 Ram Milan Singh versus state of U.P. & ors in accordance with law.

¶3ISSUE, a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite parties to add/ count the petitioner's services rendered by him as seasonal collection Amin w.e.f 6.9.1989 till his regularization and give him service benefits i.e. ACP, increments etc in accordance with law."

¶3It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin on 6.9.1989 in District Faizabad. His name finds mention in the select list prepared on 03.6.2011 of Collection Amin of District Faizabad and in the year 2016, his services was regularized. Subsequently the petitioner superannuated from service on 30.10.2024.

¶4It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had given representation to the respondents for adding their services rendered by him while working as Seasonal Collection Peon and grant pension and other post retiral benefits. As the case of the petitioner was not considered by the authorities, he approached this Court by filing Writ A No.7749 of 2024, which was disposed of by means of order dated 11.9.2024, directing District Magistrate, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) that the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits.

5.In compliance of the directiosn issue dby this Court dated

11.9.2024, the case was considered and the same was rejected by order dated 25.10.2024, on the ground that he has not completed 10 years regular service as regular employee either on temporary or daly wage or as work charge empoyee and consequently the servcies rendered as Seasonal Collecton Amin cannot be counted towards grant of pension and accordingly rejected the claim.

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not providing the benefit of the judgment of this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey and 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others passed in Writ -A No. 5817 of 2020 (decided on 08.10.2021) is illegal and arbitrary as well as contrary to the law laid down in aforesaid judgment and order as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6118 of 2024 dated 7th May, 2024 in the case of Anand Prakas Mani Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others.

¶7It is stated that persons similarly placed who were initially appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin, had approached this Court for similar relief. This Court after considering entire conspectus of the matter has given following finding :- "24. In view of the above discussion and given the law elucidated by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in various pronouncements referred above, the services rendered by the petitioners as Seasonal Collection Amin cannot be ignored for extending the benefits of pension and other retiral benefits to them on the pretext that their appointment is to be treated from the date of regularisation and nor from the date of their engagement as work charged employee.

¶25Consequently, the writ petitioner is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent to compute pensionary benefit payable to the petitioners after taking into account their entire service including the service rendered by them as Seasonal Collection Amin. The amount payable to the petitioners shall be computed within three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court, and the same shall be paid within the next two months. The respondents shall also continue to pay current pensionary benefits as and when the same fell due."

¶8Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted as the services rendered by him as Seasonal Collection Peon cannot be counted towards computing his length of service for pensionary benefits and the petitioner had never worked as regular employee. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Collection Peon on substantial capacity and his services rendered previously cannot be considered for grant of pensionary benefits and his regular services can be counted only from the date of his regularisation and not previously.

¶9Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10It is noticed that coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (supra) has considered the entire conspectus of the controversy and has taken into consideration various judgments and in the case of similarly situated Seasonal Collection Amins has observed that the services rendered by them as Seasonal Collection Amin will also be counted towards calculation of pensionary benefits of such persons.

¶11It is further noticed that on the previous date this Court had granted time to learned Standing Counsel to inform this Court as to whether judgment in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (Supra) has attained finality. Learned Standing Counsel submits that he could not obtain any instructions in this regard.

¶12Considering that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (supra) and there is no reason as to why same benefit cannot be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, present writ petition is liable to be allowed in terms of the directions issued in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (supra).

¶13In view of the above, the services rendered by the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin cannot be ignored for extending the benefits of pension and other retiral benefits to them on the pretext that his appointment is to be treated from the date of regularisation and not from the date of his engagement as Seasonal Collection Amin. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.

¶14A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to compute pensionary benefit payable to the petitioner after taking into account his entire service including the services rendered by him as Seasonal Collection Amin. The amount payable to the petitioner shall be computed within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order and the same shall be paid to him within the next two months. The respondents shall also continue to pay current pensionary benefits as and when the same fell due. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 20.12.2024 RKM. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench