RAMESHWAR PRASAD MALI Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

(2.) THE total apathy of the State Authorities in granting post-retirement benefits is writ large on the facts of the present petition. THE petitioner was a Class IV employee (Mali) in the Horticulture Department and was working in the office of District Horticulture Officer, Dehradun in the year 1992, when he requested for voluntary retirement under the Scheme of the Government. THE fact that such a scheme was in existence at the relevant time has not been denied by any of the respondents. As per the Scheme, voluntary retirement can be procured after twenty years of service or 45 years of age. According to the petitioner, he joined service in the District Horticulture Department on Class IV on 1.6.1972 and he requested for voluntary retirement vide his application addressed to the District Horticulture Officer, Dehradun dated 8.5.1992, which was allowed by the District Horticulture Officer on 24.7.1992. THE order of the District Horticulture Officer, who is the Appointing Authority of the petitioner, is on record as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition, which has not been denied. At the relevant time, petitioner had put in more than twenty years of service and consequently, the District Horticulture Officer vide his order dated 24.7.1992 stated that the petitioner will be deemed to have voluntary retired w.e.f. 31.8.1992. This order has also not been denied by the respondents. Consequently, however, when the papers of the petitioner were forwarded to higher authorities in the State Government, an objection was raised by the "Nideshak, Pension Nideshalaya Uttar Pradesh", Indira Nagar, Lucknow vide his letter dated 15.3.1993 stating that the petitioner has not completed twenty years of service and is short of this mandatory period by one year six months and nine days as the petitioner, though, had worked in the District Horticulture Department for this period i.e. one year, six months and nine days, but at that time he was not yet twenty years of age. Since these objections were raised, the District Horticulture Officer vide his letter dated 24.1.1994 again requested the "Nideshak, Udyan Evam Khadya Prasanskaran Chhetra Uttar Pradesh, Udyan Bhawan, Chaubetiya" replied stating that in such a contingency a benevolent approach must be adopted and the post of "Mali", which the petitioner has vacated, is still lying vacant, where he can be absorbed again so that he may complete the required period of service. All the same, no action was taken by the respondents, even on the subsequent recommendation of the District Horticulture Officer.

(3.) HEARD arguments of the rival parties at length.