Allowed

U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow and Ors. v. Syed Jalal Haider Rizvi and Ors.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2023SPLA/80/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court Division of Allahabad in a special appeal regarding work charge service. Citing the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021, it held that work charge services, not appointed on temporary/permanent posts per service rules, do not qualify for pensions, allowing the appeal and dismissing the petitioner's writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal allowed; judgment and order dated 03.10.2018 set aside; writ petition dismissed.

U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 80 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow And Ors. Respondent :- Syed Jalal Haider Rizvi And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,Ayush Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sabir Ali

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sabir Ali, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

¶6

The instant Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.10.2018, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition no. 11667 in (S/S) of 2018, which was filed challenging an order dated 22.01.2018, whereby the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of his service referred as work charge employee, for the purposes of grant of pension, was rejected.

¶7

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent was initially engaged on daily wages in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as 'the UPAVP' in short) on 01.10.1983. Thereafter on 22.04.1991, he was appointed as a work charge employee. In furtherance of the interim order granted on 18.03.1997 passed in writ petition no. 3185 (S/S) of 1991 filed by the respondent, it was provided that he shall be entitled for minimum of the pay scale admissible to the ClassIII employee and challenge made to the aforesaid order up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, failed.

¶8

The aforesaid Writ Petition No. 3185(S/S) of 1991 was finally decided by means of judgment and order dated 21.12.2012, directing that the petitioners should be treated to have continued to work as a Class-IV employee pursuant to an

¶9

office order dated 22.04.1991 and he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits accordingly. The benefits were paid to the petitioner in compliance of the aforesaid order, by means of an order dated 16.03.2012 passed by the Housing Commissioner.

¶10

The petitioner's service were regularized by means of the order dated 24.10.2016 and after attaining an age of superannuation, he retired on 30.06.2018. The petitioner claimed that his pension should be calculated by including his services rendered as a work charge employee, which claimed was rejected, by means of the order dated 22.01.2018 on the ground that his service rendered on work charge basis cannot be taken into consideration for grant of pension.

¶11

Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, in Civil Appeal No. 10806 of 2017 decided on 23.08.2017, Hon'ble Single Judge has held that the services rendered on work charge basis have to be counted for fixation of pension.

¶12

However, the subsequent to passing of the judgment under challenge by the Hon'ble Single Judge, the State has enacted The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021, Section 2 whereof provides that " notwithstanding anything contained in rule and regulation or Government order for the purposes of entitlement of pension to an officer, "Qualifying Services" means the services rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service rules prescribed by the Government for the posts "

¶13

Section 1(3) of the aforesaid Act provides that the act shall be deemed to have come into force on April 1, 1961. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, now there is no doubt that the services rendered on work charge basis, which do not fall within the expression: " the services rendered by an officer appointed

¶14

on a temporary or a permanent posts in accordance with the provisions of service rules. " Therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration as " Qualifying service for the purposes of entitlement of pension."

¶15

The same view has been taken by this Court in case of the State Of U.P. vs. Sadanand, Special Appeal Defective No. 17 of 2023, decided on 16.01.2023, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the judgment and order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge cannot sustain and the same is reliable to be set aside.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant Special Appeal is allowed, the judgment and order dated 3.10.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge passed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 11667 in (S/S) of 2018 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶17

However, there will be no order as to costs.

¶18

( Subhash Vidyarthi,J. ) ( Ramesh Sinha,J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 24.1.2023 Preeti

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow and Ors. v. Syed Jalal Haider Rizvi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow and Ors. v. Syed Jalal Haider Rizvi and Ors.

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

District Basic Education Officer Sitapur 3647SS/1992 Vs Sri Omkar Prakash Dixit and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru Secretary and 2 Ors. W.P.-87 S/Sof 1997 Vs Radhey Shayam Pandey and Anr.

State of U.P.through Secy Rural Engineering Vs Khesal Ahmad Siddiqui

Smt. Pooja Pant Tyagi Vs Maj.. Abhishek Tyagi and Others

Jyoti Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Women and Child Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Pooja Pant Tyagi Vs Maj. Abhishek Tyagi