HARI BABU SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to resolve the controversy involved in this petition certain facts are required to be taken note of. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 26.6.1980 as mali in User Sudhar Yojana and the petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 1.9.1984 as Van Rakshak in Beehad Sudhar Yojana. The society namely Agragami Kshetra Vikas Agency, Ajeetmal. Etawah was merged into Agragami Vikas Yojana, Ajeetmal, Etawah which was a project for the development of the area started since 1948. The petitioners were absorbed in Agragami Vikas Yojna, Ajeetmal, Etawah and were given work of kamdar and chaukidar respectively. The order in this respect was passed on 14.3.1997. On 1.5.2003, the petitioner No. 1 was confirmed as kamdar in the Agragami Vikas Yojna, Ajeetmal, Etawah whereas the petitioner No. 2 was confirmed as chaukidar on 1.6.2004. Both the petitioners retired on 31.1.2007 after completing their 60 years of age. By the order dated 2.3.2007, the total period of service rendered by the petitioners for the purposes of computing the pension payable to them showed that their service was less than ten years. On the basis of lack of qualifying service, they have been denied pensionary benefits. This order has been questioned by the petitioners in this Court. The contention of the petitioners is that some of similarly situated employees were allowed pensionary benefits/even though they did not have requisite qualifying service which would entitle them to receive pension. The petitioners further submit that they had put more than twenty years of qualifying service in the Department as such they were eligible to receive pensionary benefits.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the petitioners prior to their confirmation were working in work charge establishment as such they would not be entitled to pensionary benefits. The plea of discrimination raised by the petitioners is ill founded as persons who have been given pensionary benefits were not similarly situated with the petitioners. They were continuously working on temporary or officiating basis under the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners were brought on regular service with effect from 1.3.1997 and as such they did not have the qualifying service of 20 years to make them eligible for pension.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.