RAM PRATAP SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.1.2003 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 5 and issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pension and other post retirement benefits to the petitioner forthwith with interest at the rate of 18% till the actual payment is made to the petitioner.

(2.) The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as helper under the control of the respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 20.12.1976 and thereafter the petitioner was given all the benefits of revised pay scale from time to time. The work and conduct of the petitioner was always excellent and no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Taking into consideration the work and seniority of the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 confirmed the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. A copy of the same has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 4 served a notice of retirement-dated 30.7.2002 upon the petitioner indicating therein that the petitioner will be retired in the after noon of 31.7.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. Though, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to complete all the papers within a period of six months before the retirement of the petitioner for payment of post retrial benefits but with a malafide intention the respondents have not done anything. When nothing was done for the purposes of payment of post retrial benefits to the petitioner, the petitioner moved an application on 25.4.2003 to the respondent No.3 for making the payment of post retrial benefits to the petitioner. It is necessary to mention here that the petitioner received a copy of the letter of Additional Director, Pension, Allahabad, in which it has been stated that the matter of the petitioner shall be dealt by the respondent No 4, as the petitioner belongs to Class IV category and further as the services rendered by the petitioner is less than 10 years, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for pension. A copy of the order-dated 31.1.2003 has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner was in continuous service since 20.12.1976 and retired on 31.7.2002 and has rendered service for more than 26 years, as such, the petitioner is entitled for pension and other post retrial benefits. This Court has held that if the temporary and regular employee in the government service appointed and if he is working on any post and has completed 10 years of service is entitled to get the pension under the law. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner is 20.12.1976 in accordance with the rules and after completing all the requisite formalities, and as such, there was no occasion not to count the services from 20.12.1976 to 1993. i.e. the date of regularization and thus, the past services rendered by the petitioner ought to have counted for calculation of pension and other post retrial benefits. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition was entertained and the counter and rejoinder affidavit have been filed, as such, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.