Phool Chandra vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Abhinava Upadhya, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up to this Court challenging the order dated 12.2.2015 by which the claim of the petitioner for being paid pension upon completion of certain years of service, has been rejected on the ground that as provided under Civil Service Regulations 10 years qualifying service is necessary which the petitioner has not put in to claim pension.

It is to be noted that pursuant to a Government Order dated 17.12.1996 it was provided that all such part time Tube Well Operators working in the Irrigation Department be regularised in case they were found working prior to 1st of October, 1986 till the issuance of Government Order dated 17.12.1996.

The petitioner claimed regularization, which was rejected on the ground that prior to issuance of the said Government Order from 29.5.1986 to 10.11.1986 the petitioner was not engaged. However, when a separate letter of appointment was issued on 10.11.1986 then the petitioner joined and, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of Government Order dated 17.12.1996. This order was challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 18044 of 1998 decided on 31.8.2004 by which this Court issued a mandamus to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in accordance with law in view of Government Order dated 17.12.1996. That means the petitioner was entitled to regularisation from the date of his initial appointment dated 27.2.1986 by virtue of Government Order dated 17.12.1996. The impugned order narrates that the petitioner was regularised only on 20.11.2004 and, therefore, on attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner had not put in 10 years of regular service for being entitled for pension.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once in Writ Petition No. 18044 of 1998 vide judgment dated 31.8.2004 this Court had already directed for the regularisation of the petitioner under the Government Order dated 17.12.1996 and that judgment remained unchallenged and has become final between the parties, the respondents cannot say that the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of the said Government Order as he was regularised only in 2004 and by the date of superannuation he did not complete ten years of regular service as contemplated under Civil Services Regulation.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that for being entitled for pension the petitioner necessarily has to complete the qualifying service as provided under Civil Services Regulation, 370 and Fundamental Rule 56. The fact remains that the petitioner was only regularised in 2004, he cannot be permitted pension as per the Regulation and the Rule.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

The objection of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be sustained as in the earlier round of litigation a mandamus has already been issued to the authorities to give the benefit of the Government Order dated 17.12.1996 to the petitioner and the order earlier passed by which such a benefit was denied to the petitioner by order dated 2.3.1998 was quashed treating the petitioner to be appointed from 27.2.1986.

That being the case, the petitioner''s claim was already settled by this Court vide judgment dated 31.3.1984. Now the authorities cannot take a stand that the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation under Government Order dated 17.12.1996 especially when the said judgment of the learned Single Judge became final as it was never challenged in any forum. That being the case the petitioner has completed 10 years of regular service and is entitled for pension under the Civil Services Regulation and Fundamental Rule.

Since it has already been held by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18044 of 1998 vide judgment and order dated 31.8.2004 that the petitioner cannot be denied his rightful contention for regular pension, the order dated 12.2.2015 is quashed. The authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regular pension in the light of the observations made herein above as well as in the light of the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18044 of 1998 (Phool Chandra v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 31.8.2004. The decision shall be taken within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the authority concerned.

Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.