(1.) The appellant had moved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging an order dated 22 August 2014 passed by the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Prakhand, Mirzapur and for a mandamus to the Authority to count his service of three years and eight months as part of his service for computing the retiral dues.
(2.) The appellant was initially appointed as a Sahayak Krishi Prasar Nirikshak in the Tube-well Division at Jaunpur. In 1975, the post was abolished and according to the appellant he was accommodated together with other similarly placed persons in 1976 as a Tube-well Operator. The appellant attained the age of superannuation on 21 July 2008. His grievance was that the service rendered by him as Sahayak Krishi Prasar Nirikshak from 25 April 1972 to 31 December 1975 had not been reckoned, as a result of which, his retiral dues had not been properly computed. Since his representations were not considered, the appellant had filed a writ petition in which this Court issued a direction for the disposal of his representation. Following that, the Executive Engineer passed an order on 22 August 2014 rejecting the representation. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere under Article 226.
(3.) The order of the learned Single Judge, as would be evident from a reading of the order,? is substantially guided by the finding that even if the period of service which was rendered by the appellant as a Sahayak Krishi Prasar Nirikshak is to be taken into account, there would be no difference in the computation of the retiral benefits. It was on that basis, that the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the petition. If indeed, this finding is correct, there would be no reason for this Court to entertain a special appeal. But on a close perusal and an analysis of the order of the Executive Engineer which was impugned before the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the matter cannot be disposed of merely on an a priori basis. The Executive Engineer noted that when the post which was held by the appellant was abolished, there was an entry in his service book to the effect that his service would be brought to an end, whereas in the case of other employees, the entries in their service books were to the effect that they have been adjusted on the post of Tube-well Operator. As a result of this, the appellant has been deprived of the service which he had rendered on the post of Sahayak Krishi Prasar Nirikshak from 25 April 1972 to 31 December 1975.