Allowed

Ram Kishore Pandey and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2022WRIA/7339/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking direction to count the work charge period of petitioners' service for seniority and promotion benefits. Relying on established precedents, the Court directed the competent authority to consider the claim within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioners' claim for work charge service consideration in accordance with law and the Court's order dated 03.04.2018 within six weeks.

Ram Kishore Pandey and 3 Others Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7339 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Kishore Pandey And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 to 4.

¶6

Petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to give benefit of time bound promotion scale according to Government Order dated 02.12.2000 in view of judgement and order dated 03.04.2018 passed in Writ-A No. 15308 of 2008 (Shashi Kumar Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others).

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner has already superannuated from his services in the year 2017. However, the controversy with regard to the issue as to whether services rendered as work charge employee before regularization of the services of an employee should be counted for the purpose of pension and other benefits, came up for consideration before this Court in Writ-A No. 15308 of 2008 (Shashi Kumar Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) , which was disposed of finally, vide order dated 03.04.2018. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶9

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the period of petitioners' service rendered in work charge establishment for the purpose of seniority.

¶10

The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were initially appointed as Gauge Reader in work charge establishment of Ground Water Department in the year 1980 and 1979 respectively. Petitioner no. 3 was initially appointed on 6th February, 1984 as Field Assistant in work charge establishment of Ground Water Department and they continued as such until their regularization on 15th May, 2004 and the order of regularization has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition and the name of the petitioners figure at serial Nos. 15, 18 and 55. The claim of the petitioners is that in spite of regularization from the work charge establishment to regular establishment, the period rendered as work

¶11

charge employees has not been considered for the purpose of seniority and promotion. A Division Bench of this Court in bunch of Special Appeals leading one being Special Appeal No. 520 of 2011 vide order dated 9.10.2017 has clearly observed:-

¶12

"3. Government order dated 02.12.2000 nowhere shows that service rendered in work-charge will not count for the purpose of employees concerned for grant of time-bound pay-scale/promotional pay-scale. The parity with Article 370 of Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "CSR") which hold Work-charge Establishment not pensionable will not apply for the purpose of considering question whether such service will count for the purpose of considering employees concerned for benefit of Government order dated 02.12.2000 as no distinction in this regard has been recognized by said Government order. The purpose of granting promotional or time-bound scale is to avoid stagnation in the service of employees concerned. Therefore, there is no logic to deny work-charge service rendered by them for the purpose of considering benefit of Government order dated 02.12.2000."

¶13

The case of the petitioners is, therefore, squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench and, therefore, the petitioners are held entitled for getting benefit taking into account the work charge period of their service.

¶14

The concerned respondent is directed to consider the claims of the petitioners in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench and take appropriate decisions in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶15

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of."

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that case of petitioner is also similar and identical to the facts involved in aforementioned writ petition. He, therefore, contends that interest of justice shall be served in case a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider the claim of petitioner in the light of order dated 03.04.2018 passed by this Court as well as order dated 09.10.2017 passed by Special Appeal Bench and also relied upon by the learned Single Judge which passing the order dated 03.04.2018.

¶17

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the submissions urged by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping this writ petition pending. Interest of justice shall be served in case a direction is issued to authority concerned to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court as the claim of petitioner has to be decided by authority concerned at the first instance.

¶19

In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to competent authority to consider the claim of petitioner in accordance with law as well as order of this Court dated 30.04.2017 passed in Writ-A No.15308 of 2008 (Shashi Kumar Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others) within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 16.5.2022 Saif

¶21

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.05.18 11:12:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Kishore Pandey and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishore Pandey and 3 Others 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Pal Yadav Vs Union of India and Another

Anand Soni Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Saurabh Singh Vs Union of India through Its Sec. Ministry of Home Affairs and 6 Others

Jogendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Cdr Akhilesh Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganga Prasad Javan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others