JAGAT SINGH Vs. ADHISHASI ABHIYANTA SICHAI KHAND KARYASHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. By means of this writ petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the fol lowing prayers : (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding the respondents to make payments of superannuating serv ice pension with two years arrears of pay of 2000 to 2001 with gra tuity with revised pay scale to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum forthwith from the first initial appointment of the peti tioner with all pensionary benefits eligible to him according to the G. O. 's (Annexures Nos. 2, 3, 4 and no. 8 to this petition ). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding the respondents to en force the superannuating service pension with interest @ 12% per annum with all pensionary ben efits as available to A. K. Khan Pharidi clerk who is serving in the said department after retiring 58 years of age and still service. (Hi) Issue any other suitable writ, or der or direction of which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the costs of the writ peti tion from the respondents. 2. The petitioner's case is that he has worked on the work pharge basis in the respondent's department from 01-08-1977 to 12-09-1990 and has also worked continuously w. e. f. 01-08-1970 to 31-01 -2000 for about 24 years. He had also worked on the post of Turner Grade-1 as regular employee w. e. f. 12-09- 1990 to 31-01 -2000. He was retired on 31-01-2000 after attaining the age of 58 years according to Rules prevalent at the relevant time. After retirement of the petitioner, the Government issued a G. O. by which the age of the superannuation was extended upto 60 years. The peti tioner was retired at the age of 58 years prior to the issuance of the subsequent G. O. As such, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the extended period of service. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was in service since 01-08-1977 to 31-01-2000 and he had served the department for 24 years and as such he was entitled for the pension under the Pensionary Benefit Scheme. Learned Standing Counsel for the State refuted the contention and contended that the peti tioner had been working since 02-08-1977 to 11-09-1990 as work charge employee on daily wages. On 12-09-1990 the peti tioner was regularized on the post of Me chanic Grade-Ill and he was retired on 31-01-2000 after attaining the age of 58 years according to Rules prevalent at the relevant time. It was further contended that the services of the petitioner was less than 10 years and as such he was not entitled to get the pensionary benefits in view of the Government Order dated 28-0/-1989 (Annexure-II of the counter affi davit ). It was further contended that the amount of gratuity i. e. Rs. 13. 500/- has already been paid to the petitioner on 10-09-2004. The respondents have also filed the Supplementary Counter Affidavit to that effect. Perusal of the G. O. dated 28-0/-1989 (Annexure-II to the counter affi davit) reveals that those employees who have completed 10 years of service are en titled to get the pension and a person who has less than 10 years of service he is not entitled to get the pension. This G. O. only provides that the amount of gratuity can only be paid to the petitioner and the same has already been paid to the peti tioner. The petitioner had been working in the department since 2-8-1977 to 12-9-1990 as daily wages. As such, the service of the petitioner could not counted for the said period. The service of the petitioner i. e. 2-8-1977 to 12-09- 1990 cannot be treated at par with the regular employee of the department. The daily wager has no right to retain the post till he is ab sorbed. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi 2006 AIR SCWp/1991 ). His. service can only be counted from 12-09-1990 when he was regularized on the post of Mechanic Grade-Ill. He was retired from service on 31-01-2000 after attain ing the age of his superannuation. Thus, it is evident from the record that the peti tioner had not completed 10 years of serv ice in the department. In view of G. O. dated 28-0/-1989, the petitioner is not entitled to get the pensionary benefits. 5. In view of the foregoing discus sion, I am of the view that the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dis missed. 6. The petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. .