Subba Ram vs State of U.P. and Others

Dilip Gupta, J.—This is an application for review of the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2009 by which the petition was allowed and it was held that the petitioner was entitled to pension in accordance with the decision of Division Bench in Board of Revenue and Ors. v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay 2006 (1) ESC 611.

Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Seasonal Collection Peon and not as a Temporary Collection Peon since even in Writ Petition No. 22812 of 2000 filed by the petitioner, he has mentioned himself to be a Seasonal Collection Peon. He has, therefore, submitted that the claim of the petitioner that he was a Temporary Collection Peon is not correct.

Sri J.P.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the respondents themselves have treated the petitioner as a Temporary Collection Peon as in the service book his appointment has been mentioned as Temporary Collection Peon. He has submitted that this was also the position in the case of Prasidh Narain Upadhyay (supra) since in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgment it is mentioned that the Court examined the service book of the petitioner and found that his appointment was mentioned as Temporary Collection Peon.

While allowing the writ petition on 20th February, 2009 reliance was placed on the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court in Prasidh Narain Upadhyay (supra). The service of of the petitioner mentions that the petitioner is a Temporary Collection Peon. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as was granted to Prasidh Narain Upadhyay. There is, therefore, no reason to review the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2010.

The Review Petition is, accordingly, rejected.