GOVIND VALLABH PANDEY Vs. DIRECTOR LOCAL BODY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Surveyor in Kanpur Development Board on 12.10.1945. Thereafter he was appointed as Sub-Overseer in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, after the Kanpur Development Board was renamed as Nagar Mahapalika. Kanpur. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on 3.1.1968 in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur and then from 1.6.1975 till 11.5.1981 he worked as Assistant Engineer on deputation in Kanpur Development Authority. While working as such, in the year 1982 the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Pithoragarh Nagar Palika to look after the development work of the Pithoragarh. The petitioner had applied for absorption in the Kanpur Development Authority as Assistant Engineer. Thereupon, the petitioner having been absorbed/appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Kanpur Development Authority on 16.4.1983, by a letter dated 24.5.1983 he was relieved from Pithoragarh whereupon he Joined as Assistant Engineer in Kanpur Development Authority on 25.5.1983. The petitioneT retired on 31.7.1985 as Assistant Engineer from Kanpur Development Authority. After his retirement, anticipatory pension of the petitioner was being paid by the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur but his pension and gratuity has not been paid. On the other hand, the Chief Accounts Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur has raised an objection that since the petitioner is an employee of Kanpur Development Authority, therefore, he should be paid his pension and gratuity by the Kanpur Development Authority. In that view of the matter, the liability to pay the retirement benefit of the petitioner is being disputed between the Nagar Nigam and the Kanpur Development Authority.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having seved for a along time, he is entitled to the retirement benefits which cannot be denied and he cannont be victimised because of the dispute between the two authorities.

(3.) Shri M. M. D. Agarwal. learned counsel for Nagar Nigam on the other hand contends that the petitioner having been appointed in the Kanpur Development Authority in terms of letter dated 18.5.1983 after he was selected through the selection committee, he became an employee of the Kanpur Development Authority and subjected to the terms and conditions of service applicable to the employee of the Kanpur Development Authority after giving him continuity on account of his past service. Therefore, according to him, the liability is that of Kanpur Development Authority and not of the Nagar Nigam. In support of such statement, certain documents have been annexed as Annexure to the said counter-affidavit filed by Nagar Nigam.