SURAJ NARAIN BHATT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri D. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and perused the record of the case. Counter and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged. On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself in terms of the Rules of the Court.

(2.) THE facts of the case of the petitioner in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on 29.12.1966 to the post of Boring Mechanic in the office of the respondents, and his services were regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1975. He was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on 7.7.1983 and continued to discharge his duties as such till he attained the age of superannuation, i.e., 31.7.2004. THE respondents did not release his post retiral benefits, as pension, Gratuity, G.P.F. etc., therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 5416 of 2004 before this Court which was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously. Since his representation was not decided by the respondents in terms of the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in Contempt Petition No. 1048 of 2005 and only when the respondents were directed to appear in person before the Court, the respondents passed order dated 10.5.2005 for payment of retiral benefits, but they wrongly fixed vide impugned order dated 13.9.2005 his salary @ Rs. 6,375 per month for the purpose of his pension against the post of Boring Mechanic, though the petitioner had worked for more than 23 years on the post of Junior Engineer on the ground that the petitioner had not been regularised on the post of Junior Engineer and therefore, he was not entitled for promotional pay scale of Class II.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decisions of this Court passed on 14.12.1999 in Writ Petition No. 3491 of 1988, Abhimanyu Dev Pandey v. State of U. P. and others and on 18.10.2006 in Writ Petition No. 1783 (S/S) 2004, Shamim Ahmad Siddique v. The State of U. P. and others, wherein the incumbents were similarly situated person who had been appointed as Boring Mechanic and thereafter promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on stop-gap arrangement and had worked continuously several years till the date of their retirements. The said writ petitions have been allowed on the ground that they had worked on the post of Junior Engineer for substantial period, which could not be ignored while settling the pension and for payment of other retiral benefits admissible to them. He has relied upon a decision rendered in the case of Dr. Uma Agrawal v. State of U. P. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 438 : 1999 (2) AWC 1486 (SC), wherein it has been held that pension is not a bounty but right of retired employee. Government is obliged to initiate process for payment according to time-schedule prescribed in the departmental rules. Non-observance of the time-schedule is one of the factors which Court may take note of. He has also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 2000 (2) SC 3513, wherein it has been observed that the State is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum, if the retiral benefits are wrongly withheld.