Dismissed

Gulab Chandra Dubey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2020WRIA/16949/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the denial of his superannuation pension and gratuity claims, arguing that his service period should be rounded off to meet the mandatory 20-year qualifying threshold. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the strict literal interpretation of the applicable Retirement Benefits Rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order rejecting petitioner's claim for pension and gratuity stands upheld.

Gulab Chandra Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 42

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16949 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Gulab Chandra Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Avanish Kumar Upadhyay,Raj Kumar Upadhyay

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Pandey

¶7

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶8

Short rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey learned counsel for the respondents.

¶10

By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the order dated 4.4.2019 passed by the respondent whereby his claim for grant of superannuation pension and gratuity has not been acceded to.

¶11

A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner moved a representation dated 18.1.1999 seeking appointment on compassionate ground after death of his father on 31.1.1999. The appointment letter dated 12.5.1999 was issued by the Secretary Varanasi Development Authority after due approval order dated 10.5.1999 passed by the Vice Chairman. The appointment of the petitioner was, thus, made under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 on the Class-IV posts of peon. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner had continued in the service of the Varanasi Development Authority on a Class-IV post and had retired on 31.3.2019. The notice to superannuate the petitioner from the services of the Development Authority was issued by the competent officer on 30.3.2019. The date of birth of the petitioner entered in

¶12

¶13

the service book is 20.3.1959. The total period of services rendered by the petitioner in the development authority, thus, is 19 years, 10 months and 18 days.

¶14

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the qualifying service for grant of monthly pension and gratuity on superannuation is 20 years, as per the rules governing the conditions for grant of retiral benefits to the employee of noncentralised services of the development authority whereas, total period of service rendered by the petitioner is short by only one month and 12 days. The insistence of the respondent on the total period of qualifying service being 20 years for grant of pension is, therefore, wholly arbitrary.

¶15

Submission is that the Rules namely U.P Development Authority Non centralised Retirement Benefits Rules 2011, which provides that the pension is payable to an employee only on completion of 20 years or more of continuous service in a permanent establishment is wholly discriminatory, inasmuch as, a Government employee is entitled to benefit of regular service of 10 years only. Reliance is further placed on the Government order dated 8.12.2018 to assert that the services rendered for a period of three months or more should be treated to be six months for computation of pension of an employee, which is computed on six monthly basis.

¶16

Submission, thus, is that the service rendered by the petitioner in the last four months of 20^th year of regular service should have to be treated as the whole year. The shortage of one and half month of period of service, therefore, would have to be condoned. Applying the above principle, the total period of services rendered by the petitioner would be twenty years of regular service which is needed for according monthly pension to an employee. The petitioner being a permanent and regular employee of the Development Authority

¶17

¶18

cannot be denied monthly pension on attaining the age of superannuation. The gratuity is also payable to the petitioner on the same principles.

¶19

Reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs Union of India reported in ( 1996) 7 SCC 113 , State Bank of Patiala vs Pritam Singh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 474 and the decision of this Court in Service Single No.3954 of 2008 (Sita Ram and another vs State of U.P) to assert that the broken period of service is to be condoned and computed towards qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits. The period of service of an employee if includes broken period of service which is less than one year and more than six months, it shall be treated as one year; and if such broken period is six months or less, it shall have to be ignored. The submission, thus, is that the total services rendered by the petitioner being 19 years 10 months and 18 days has to be rounded off to compute it as 20 years of qualifying service.

¶20

In the counter affidavit, these submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are denied placing reliance on the U.P. Development Authority Non-centralized Service Retiral Benefits Rules, 2011. The relevant clause (u) of Rule 2 which defines qualifying service of the member of Non-centralized services reads as under:-

¶21

½^^ vgZdkjh lsok^^ dk rkRi;Z lsok ds fdlh lnL; dh ,slh lsok ls gS tks fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa dks iwjh djrk gks&

¶22

¼,d½ lsok fdlh izkf/kdj.k ds v/khu vo'; gks]

¶23

¼nks½ fu;kstu ekSfyd@fu;fer@LFkk;h vo'; gks]

¶24

¼rhu½ lsok dk Hkqxrku fdlh izkf/kdj.k }kjk vo'; fd;k tkrk gks]

¶25

¼pkj½ fdlh izkf/kdj.k ds v/khu xSj isa'ku;ksX; vf/k"Bku esa vLFkk;h ;k LFkkukiUu lsok dks NksMdj lsok dh vof/k

¶26

¼ikap½ fdlh dk;Z izHkkfjr vf/k"Bku esa lsok dh vof/k vkSj]

¶27

¶28

¼N%½ vkdfLed O;; ls Hkqxrku fd;s tkus okys in esa lsok dh vof/k]

¶29

ijUrq ;g fd lsok ds fdlh lnL; dh lsok {kfr iwfrZ minku ds flok; is'ku vkSj minku ds fy, rc rd vgZ ugh gksxh tc rd fd mlus chl o"kZ dh lsok iwjh u dj yh gks

¶30

ijUrq ;g vkSj fd fdlh lq/kkjU;kl izkf/kdj.k ikfydk cksMZ fuxe] dsUnz ;k jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu fujUrj vLFkk;h ;k LFkkukiUu lsok dh vof/k dh x.kuk vgZdkjh lsok ds :i esa dh tk;sxh ;fn mlh ;k fdlh vU; in ij lsok ds fdlh O;o/kku ds fcuk ckn esa mls LFkk;h dj fn;k tk;A

¶31

fVIi.kh& ;fn fdlh ias'ku jfgr vf/k"Bku dk;Z izHkkfjr vf/k"Bku esa ;k vkdfLedrk O;; ls Hkqxrku fd;s tkus okys fdlh in ij dh x;h lsok fdlh isa'ku;qDr vf/k"Bku esa vLFkk;h lsok dh nks vof/k ds chp ;k fdlh isa'ku;qDr vf/k"Bku esa vLFkk;h lsok vkSj LFkk;h lsok dh vof/k ds chp esa iM+rh gks rks og lsok dk O;o/kku ugh gksxhA

¶32

A careful reading of the Pension Rules 2011 makes it evident that the minimum qualifying services for grant of pensionary benefits such as monthly pension and gratuity is 20 years. No employee is eligible for pensionary benefits if he has not completed minimum 20 years of qualifying service. The said condition, however, is with the exception in the 'Proviso' that in the event a Government employee rendered temporary or stop-gap service in a Government Department or Development Authority and if he was appointed on a permanent post in another Government Department or Development Authority in continuation of such temporary or stop gap service, the period of temporary or stop-gap services shall be computed towards 'qualifying service' for grant of retiral benefits. The 'Note' appended to the said 'Proviso' further states that if a Government employee had worked in a work-charge establishment or had been paid from the exigency funds of such an establishment/- services accruing no pensionary benefits, but period of service falls between two tenure of services in an establishment accruing pensionary benefits, whether on temporary or permanent basis, the period of such working would not be treated as a break in service. That means, past services rendered by such an employee in an establishment accruing no pensionary benefits during the said intervening period would be counted towards total qualifying service for grant of pensionary

¶33

¶34

benefits.

¶35

Apart from above two exceptions, there is no other provision for relaxation or rounding-off the period short of the minimum period of 'qualifying services' for grant of retiral benefits. The period of 20 years of qualifying services being the minimum prescribed period under the rules governing conditions for grant of retiral benefits to an employee concerned, it is not possible for the Court to relax the said condition or to do away with the requirement of the rules.

¶36

The decisions of the Apex Court and this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help as the said judgments are based on the reading of the rules subject matter of the consideration therein. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner had entered into the services of the Development Authority on 12.5.1999 when he was appointed for the first time under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. Prior to that, he was neither in a temporary nor in any permanent Government establishment. The total period of services rendered by the petitioner till the date of superannuation is less than 20 years. There is no break in the services of the petitioner which could be condoned and taking into consideration of the entire length of services rendered by him during the tenure of his services of the Development Authority, it is less than 20 years. There is no question of condoning the shortage of one and half month or rounding-off the period of ten months and 18 days being 12 months or One year to compute the total period as 20 years.

¶37

This court though finds it a harsh case but cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner as the rules relating to grant of retiral benefits are clear and unambiguous. It is settled law that while interpreting a rule or statutory provision, the Court will read the rule as it is, without adding any word to it or subtracting any word from it.

¶38

¶39

The plain and simple reading of the statutory Rule giving it a literal interpretation when intention of the legislature is clear and there is no ambiguity in it, is the first principle of interpretation of statutory provisions. The Court can not venture into any creativity to substitute its own views or opinion so as to add anything to the Rule. The language of the Rule defining “qualifying services” as extracted above is clear to the extent that an employee would not be entitled to monthly pension or gratuity till he completes minimum 20 years of qualifying services. There is no scope of any other interpretation to the rule governing the conditions for grant of retiral benefits to the petitioner herein.

¶40

The order of rejection of representation of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law.

¶41

The writ petition is found devoid of merit and hence dismissed.

¶42

Order Date :- 12.02.2020 Harshita

Gulab Chandra Dubey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Chandra Dubey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State Bank of India Thru Regional Manager and Others

Ramesh Chandra Nagar and 18 Others Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

Raj Narayan Yadav Vs State Bank of India Thru Its M.D. and Others

Sri Prafull Saraswat Vs Sri Mahesh Singh and 18 Others

Ashutosh Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.and 2 Ors.