Allowed

Ram Awadh Shahi v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2019WRIA/47834/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of pension claim by a regularised employee who commenced service on fixed pay prior to the new pension scheme. Court held computation of service relates back to substantive appointment date.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 1 August 2016 and 23 July 2016 quashed; respondents commanded to compute retirement benefits in accordance with law.

Ram Awadh Shahi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 47834 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Awadh Shahi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Nath Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Gupta, who appears for the contesting Basic Education Officer.

¶6

This petition impugns the orders dated 1 August 2016 and 23 July 2016 principally turning down the claim of the petitioner for being accorded benefits under the old pension scheme. Undisputedly the new pensionary regimen came into force with effect from 1 April 2005. The petitioner appears to have been initially appointed as a Sewak on the payment of a fixed pay of Rs. 50/- per month by the concerned Basic Education Officer. He continued as such till his services were regularised by the respondents On 23 October 1998. The order of regularisation mentions the date of his appointment as 26 February 1980. When the petitioner retired from the service of the respondents on 31 July 2015, he raised a claim for the grant of pensionary benefits. This was refused by the respondents who took the position that the pensionary benefits would be liable to be granted to only those employees who had been working in a regular pay scale. According to the respondents since the petitioner was placed in the regular pay scale only after the date of promulgation of the new pension scheme he would not be entitled to the benefits as claimed.

¶7

This Court finds itself unable to sustain the reasoning as

¶8

adopted by the respondents for the following reasons.

¶9

Although in the counter affidavit it has been averred that the post against which the petitioner was originally appointed was neither sanctioned nor vacant they do not dispute the engagement of the petitioner by the Basic Education Officer in terms of the order dated 26 February 1980. Regard must also be had to the fact that no material has been brought on record by the respondents to establish that the post of Sewak did not exist on the regular cadre of the institution in which he was placed. It is then contended by the respondents that the petitioner was ultimately absorbed against a permanent vacancy which occurred on 14 December 2005. This assertion of fact is ex facie incorrect and unsustainable since undisputedly his services were regularised by the respondents themselves on 23 October 1998. The order of regularisation mentions the date of substantive appointment of the petitioner to be 26 February 1980.

¶10

That leaves the Court to only consider the objection that qualifying service is liable to be computed only from the time when a person is placed in the regular pay scale. Although the objection is countered by Sri Srivastava who states that from the service record of the petitioner, it is evident that he had been placed in a regular pay scale prior to 1 April 2005, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the stand taken on a more fundamental plane. The computation of qualifying service would undisputedly be governed by the provisions of the Civil Services Regulations as applicable in the State of U.P.

¶11

Sri Gupta learned counsel for the respondents has been unable to draw the attention of the Court to any provision in those Regulations which may correlate the computation of qualifying service to the placement in the regular pay scale. Since undisputedly the services of the petitioner stood regularised with effect from 20 February 1980 and the order of regularisation is not in dispute, the stand as taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced.

¶12

Accordingly this petition shall stand allowed. The impugned orders dated 1 August 2016 and 23 July 2016 are hereby quashed. The respondents are commanded to compute the retiral benefits of the petitioner in accordance with law and in light of the observations made herein above forthwith.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.4.2019 LA/-

Ram Awadh Shahi v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Awadh Shahi v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Tomer and 28 Others Vs Vinay Kumar Gill, Principal D.I.E.T.

Smt. Indrawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd. Khurshid Mansoori Vs State of U P and 19 Others

Prem Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shakti Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vikram Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others