MOTI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. Petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs : " (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the pension and other retiral benefits "like gratuity, provident fund, G. P. F. etc. " to the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the interest at the current rate on the amount of pension and retiral benefits computed till the date of actual payment. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner. "

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, as set-up in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was appointed as Tube- well Operator in the month of June, 1962 but under the state of mental imbalance he resigned on 4-12- 1985 which though he purports to have subsequently withdrawn. But according to the statement made in the counter-affidavit, before the petitioner opted for withdrawal of resignation, it was accepted by the respondents on 31-12-1985. Petitioner thereafter urged even assuming his resignation to have been accepted, he is entitled for pensionary benefits as he has put in 21 years of service with the respondents.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the aforesaid it appears that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Regulations 370. It has been admitted by the respondents in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Runner on 22-7-1964 and subsequently followed by regular appointment as tube-well operator on 18-1-1976 which is not within the exception of Regulation 370 of Civil Service Regulations and if the same is not covered, it gives a right to the petitioner to get pension even assuming his resignation is accepted in the month of December, 1985. No other point was urged. The view of the respondents that the petitioner has put in less than 20 years of service, is rejected.