Ram Garib vs State of U.P. and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.7.1998 passed by Respondent No. 3, Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as labourer on daily wage in the office of Respondent No. 2 and his services were regularized on 2.12.1981 as Class IV employee in the pay scale of Rs. 750/- 940/- and since then he has regularly worked in the department. He retired from service on 31.12.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years, as he had retired on 31.12.1996. The petitioner moved an application for payment of G.P.F., gratuity, pension and other retirement benefits, but the same has not been paid to him. A reminder was also sent on 24.4.1997 on which the order was passed by Respondent No. 3 for payment of retirement benefits within one month, but nothing was done. On another application of the petitioner dated 22.8.1997 also met the same fate. The Deputy Secretary (Administration), Kshetriya Karyalaya Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Varanasi passed an order dated 1.1.1997 directing the Superintendent Grade II for taking necessary action in the case of the petitioner.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2445 of 1998 for direction to the Respondents to pay to him G.P.F., Gratuity, Pension and other retirement benefits. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 23.1.1998 directing Respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate order releasing the entire retirement benefits of the petitioner in accordance with law within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, if there was no impediment. The certified copy of the order dated 23.1.1998 was served upon Respondent No. 3 on 31.1.1998, even then the payment of the entire retirement benefits has not been made.

The petitioner filed Contempt Application No. 900 of 1998 against the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed in the contempt application, copy of the order dated 3.7.1998 was annexed by which the claim of the petitioner for the post of retirement benefits had been rejected, which is as under :-

;kfpdk la[;k 2445@98] jke xjhc cuke LVsV cSad vkQ ;w-ih- ,oa vU;] esa ek- mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 23-1-1998 ds vuqikyu esaq Jh jke xjhc ds izR;kosnu fnukad 31-1-1998 dk fuLrkj.k(

;kph Jh jke xjhc dh fu;fer Jfed ds in ij ek/;fed f''k{kk ifj"kn] m-iz- {ks=h; dk;kZy;] bykgkckn esa fnukad 2-12-2001 dks fu;qfDr dh xbZ Fkh A mlds i''pkr mudk LFkkukUrj.k dk;kZy; vkns''k la[;k fu;qfDr@17] fnukad 12-8-1986 }kjk {ks=h; dk;kZy; ek-f''k-i-] cjsyh ds fy, fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mDr dk;kZy; vkns''k esa ;g vafdr Fkk fd fnukad 14-8-1986 ls ;s Lor% dk;Z eqDr le>s tk;saxs A fdUrq Jh jke xjhc fnukad 14-2-1987 rd {ks=h; dk;kZy;] bykgkckn esa fu;fer Jfed ds in ij dk;Z djrs jgs QyLo:i bUgsa 14-2-1987 rd dk;Zjr vof/k dk osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k vkSj 14-2-1987 dks {ks=h; dk;kZy;] cjsyh esa fu;fer Jfed ds in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus gsrq dk;Z eqDr fd;k x;k] ijUrq Jh jke xjhc us {ks=h; dk;kZy;] cjsyh esa fu;fer Jfed ds in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugha fd;k vkSj fcuk fdlh izkFkZuk&i= ds fnukad 15-2-1987 ls 4-8-1992 rd fujUrj vuqifLFkr jgs A QyLo:i bl vof/k esa dgh ij Jh jke xjhc ds dk;Zjr u gksus ds dkj.k budh lsok ckf/kr gqbZ vkSj bl vof/k esa bUgsa jktdh; lsok ugha ekuk x;k A rnksijUr fnukad 5-8-1992 dks Jh jke xjhc us {ks- dk-] cjsyh esa fu;fer Jfed ds in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k A mlds i''pkr ifj"kn ds dk;kZy; vkns''k la[;k fu;qfDr@87] fnukad 21-7-1995 ds }kjk jke xjhc dk LFkkukUrj.k {ks- dk-] cjsyh ls {ks- dk-] okjk.klh esa fu;fer Jfesd ds in ij fd;k x;k] ftlds vuqikyu esa fnukad 8-8-1995 dks Jh jke xjhc us {ks- dk-] okjk.klh esa fu;fer Jfed ds in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k A mlds i''pkr vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ gksus ij fnukad 31-12-1993 dks Jh jke xjhc jktdh; lsok ls lsok fuo`Rr gq, gaSaa A

Jh jke xjhc dh lsok iqfLrdk ds voyskdu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd vius lEiw.kZ lsokdky esa Jh jke xjhc fnukad 15-2-1987 ls 5-8-92 rd fujUrj vuqifLFkr jgs vkSj mudk lEiw.kZ lsokdky o"kZ 7 ekg dk vksj 8 fnu gh gS A-----------------jktdh; lsok ls vodk''k izkIr djus ds mijkUr 10 o"kZ dh lsokof/k gksu ij gh isa''ku] xzsP;wVh] jkf''kdj.k ,oa vU; ykHk vuqeU; fd, tkrs gSa] fdUrq Jh jke xjhc dh lEiw.kZ lsokof/k 10 o"kZ ls de gksus ds dkj.k isa''ku] xzsP;wVh] jkf''kdj.k ,oa vU; ykHk ugha fn;k tk ldrk A

;gkW ij ;g Hkh mYys[k djuk lehphu gksxk fd Jh jke xjhc dks lsok fuo`Rr gksus ds i''pkr Hkfo"; fuokZg fuf/k dh /kujkf''k :- 28]916-00 ns; Fkh] ftldk Hkqxrku fnukad 17-3-1998 dks fd;k tk pqdk gS A

mDr ls Li"V gks jgk gS fd lsok fuo`Rr gksus ds i''pkr Jh jke xjhc dks ns; lsok fuo`Rrd ns;ksa dk Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;k gS] fdUrq 10 o"kZ ls lsok vof/k de gksus ds dkj.k isa''ku] xzsP;wVh] jkf''kdj.k vkfn mUgsa ns; ugha gS A

mDruqlkj ek- mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 23-1-1998 ds vuqikyu esa Jh jke xjhc dk izR;kosnu fnukad 31-1-1998 fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gS A

g-

dq- deys[k fiz;n''khZ]

{ks=h; lfpo] ek-f''k-i-]

m-iz- {ks- dk-] okjk.klh A

A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the grounds taken for non-payment of retirement benefits of the petitioner are that he was transferred to the Regional Office, Barielly by order dated 12.8.1986. It is alleged that the petitioner did not joint at Barielly and remained continuously absent causing break in service and as such he did not remain in Government service during the period 15.2.1987 to 4.8.1992. It is further alleged that after the petitioner joined at Barielly on 5.8.1992 in pursuance of the order dated 21.7.95, he has been paid regular salary. From the perusal of the service-book, it is clear that the period of absence taken as break in service, was not counted in total service period.

According to the respondents, a Government employee becomes entitled to the fund, gratuity and other retirement benefits after putting atleast 10 years service, but the service period of the petitioner was less than 10 years, though he has been paid a sum of Rs. 28,916-00 on 17.3.1998. He was not entitled to the Fund, Gratuity and other retirement benefits.

The averment of the writ petition is that the order of transfer dated 20.5.1986 was never served on him. He further submits that he has been continuously working at Allahabad, but his salary was not paid.

In Para 31 of the writ petition the petitioner has denied that he relieved from Kshetriya Karyalaya, Allahabad in pursuance of the order dated 12.8.1996. On the contrary, it is averred that the petitioner had been working in Kshetriya Karyalaya, Allahabad upto February, 1987.

No counter affidavit has been filed in this case inspite of time being granted to the respondents. The petitioner has also not filed any document showing that he had worked during the period 15.2.1987 to 4.8.1992. In absence of any material before this Court regarding actual working at Allahabad, as claimed by him, no order for payment of salary for the aforesaid period can be passed as prayed by him. It would, however, be in the fitness of things to direct Respondent No. 3 to examine the record of the petitioner in his presence and as such the attendance and payment of salary registers etc. for the relevant period 15.2.87 to 4.8.1992 and decide the claim with a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order is produced before him. If it is found that the petitioner had worked during the aforesaid period at Allahabad, he would be given continuity of service and his claim would be accordingly considered for payment of Fund, Gratuity and other emoluments shall be paid by the authority concerned within further period of two months from the date of the claim of the petitioner is decided by Respondent No. 3.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.