Allowed

Maiku Lal Jatav v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2017SPLA/2442/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant appealed against dismissal of his claim for retirement benefits. Court held that temporary service prior to regularization constitutes qualifying service under Rule 56 of Civil Service Regulations. Petition allowed; authorities directed to calculate benefits from date of temporary appointment and pay outstanding dues.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of Single Judge set aside; Respondents directed to pay retiral benefits computing service from 23.04.1975; Outstanding dues to be paid within six months.

Maiku Lal Jatav Vs State of U.P. and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 2442 of 2011

¶4

Appellant :- Maiku Lal Jatav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.S. Kashyap Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri A.S. Kashyap, learned counsel for appellant and learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

¶7

This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgement and order dated 15.11.2011 passed in writ petition no. 64694 of 2011 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed writ petition.

¶8

Appellant attained age of superannuation and retired on 31.07.2005 but has not been paid retiral dues and his claim for retiral dues has been rejected vide order dated 15.09.2011 by Regional Food Controller, Kanpur Region, Kanpur on the ground that appellant was regularized on 29.11.1997 vide order dated 24.10.2000 and since he has completed less then 10 years of service, therefore not entitled for pension.

¶9

Learned Single Judge has dismissed writ petition observing that service rendered prior to regularization cannot be considered for purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. We find that the view taken by authorities as well as learned Single Judge is erroneous and not consistent with statutory provisions as also law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Hari Shankar Asopa Vs. State of U.P. and another (1989) 1 UPLBEC 501 .

¶10

Appellant was initially appointed as Godown Chowkidar on

¶11

¶12

23.04.1975 temporarily. Thereafter his service were confirmed on 29.11.1997. He retired from service on 31.07.2005. His post retiral benefits has been denied by Regional Food Controller, Kanpur Region, Kanpur vide order dated 15.09.2011 on the ground that his substantive/regular services is for less than 10 years.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has been working since 23.04.1975 and services rendered prior to regularization liable to be considered as qualifying service for the purposes of granting pension and other retiral benefits.

¶14

Only question raised before this Court is 'whether temporary services rendered by appellant would be a qualifying service for pension or not'.

¶15

This issue has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Hari Shankar Asopa (supra) , wherein after referring to fundamental Rule 56 and various provisions contained in Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'CSR'), this Court has observed:

¶16

"Clause (e) of Rule 56 unequivocally recognizes, declares and guarantees retiring pension to every Government servant who retires on attaining the age of superannuation, or who is prematurely retired or who retires volunatrily. To be precise, every Government Servant whether permanent or temporary) who retires under Clause (a) or Clause (b), or who is required to retire or who is allowed to retire under Clause (c) of Rule 56, becomes entitled for a retiring pension, of course, the first and third conditions stipulated in Article 361 of the Regulations are satisfied."

¶17

In view of above, petitioner having been appointed on 23.04.1975 on temporary basis and his services prior to regularization is liable to be added as 'qualifying service' for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits. Therefore judgment of learned Single Judge denying petitioner's claim for pension and other benefits cannot be sustained.

¶18

¶19

Appeal is accordingly allowed. Judgment and order dated 15.11.2011 passed by learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to pay retiral benefits to petitioner by computing even service rendered on temporary basis i.e. from 23.04.1975 as 'qualifying service' for the purposes of pension. Outstanding dues of petitioner shall be paid within six months and respondents shall continue to pay regular pension without any further delay.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.12.2017 S. Thakur

Maiku Lal Jatav v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maiku Lal Jatav v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Bahadur Singh Vs Director of Education Secondary Govt. of U.P. and Others

Chandra Shekhar Joshi Vs District Inspectorof Schools Saharanpur and Others

Munnoo Ram Rastogi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

C/M Ganga Prasad Ram Prasad Inter College Adarsh Vidyapith Vs Chandrika Singh Yadav and Others

Shobhawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others