Ram Sewak vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Sri J.N.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ran Vijai Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer and Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the state-respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Class IV Employee i.e. Peon/Messenger on

05.02.1970 in the Junior High School Sultanpur Khera, Block-Sataon, District- Raebareli in the pay scale of Rs.20-1/2- 25, which was pay scale of Class-IV Employee in the year 1970. According to him, he was transferred during his tenure from one place to another and ultimately he retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2002 and all through his entire 2 WRIA No. 5860 of 2004 tenure of employment, he has been continuously working on the said post. It has further been submitted that by the learned Counsel that although as per the Service Book, the petitioner has been absorbed as a regular employee, however post his retirement, the retiral benefits were not granted to him and as such the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition with the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to release the post retiral benefits to the petitioner i.e. pension, gratuity, general provident fund, group insurance and leave encashment etc. forthwith w.e.f. the date of his retirement which is due after retirement of the petitioner i.e.

31.12.2002 with compound interest at the rate of 12% per annum. ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to give arrears of salary to the petitioner fixing his salary in the regular pay scale with effect from the date services of the petitioner were transferred to the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board and to give other consequential benefits. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2004 contained in Annexure No.8 to the writ petition."

3. Learned counsel has also relied on various annexures/documents including the experience certificate, extract of service book etc. to substantiate his claim for the aforesaid post retiral benefits.

4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment dated 05.07.2013, which has been passed in Service Single No. 5383 of 2005 (Kalika Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary Basic Shiksha) and has submitted that the facts of the said judgment are squarely applicable to the present case and the petitioner would be satisfied, in case this Court directs the District Basic Education Officer, Raebareli to decide the present writ petition as a representation in light of the said judgment and in a time bound manner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 has vehemently opposed the said submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has sought to highlight that neither the petitioner was regularized nor absorbed in the regular services and as such the judgment relied upon cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner for claiming any retirement benefits. However, he does not dispute the fact that in case this 3 WRIA No. 5860 of 2004 Court directs the competent authority to consider the present writ petition as a representation, all the aspect of absorption & regularization and its consequential effect, shall be looked into by the competent authority in a time bound manner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the matter is relating to the grant of post retiral benefits like pension, gratuity, G.P.F, leave encashment etc. and have been hanging fire since 31.12.2002. Notices were issued to the respondents in the present writ petition, however, none of these respondents have filed their counter affidavits nor any document had been filed, although time has been sought by the respondents on various occasions. Today, also when the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondents have sought a short accommodation for filing of their respective counter-affidavit along with supporting documents.

7. Prima-facie, this Court was inclined to decide the present writ petition on its own merits, based on the documents filed by the petitioner, however, even the learned Counsel for the petitioner wishes to file certain more documents to supplement his stand taken in the present petition.

8. This Court is not inclined to give any further time to the learned Counsels for the parties nor it appears to this Court that any useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending, in view of the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to consider the present petition as a representation and give consequential effect in the light of the judgment of a coordinate bench of this court in Kalika Prasad Pandey (supra).

9. Be that as it may, in view of the specific prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he will be satisfied, if the matter is remanded to the competent authority to decide the present writ petition as a representation within a time bound manner and keeping in mind that the issue is awaiting for more than two decades to see the light of the day, this Court, hereby, directs the competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a representation of the petitioner and decide the same in view of the rival contention of the parties within four weeks by a speaking order and after giving opportunities of personal hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative. . 4 WRIA No. 5860 of 2004

10. Needless to say, both the parties are granted liberty to supplement their contentions before the competent authority by filing any other documents, judgment etc., which may be required to substantiate their case. The competent Authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner on its own merits, without being influenced by the disposal of the present writ petition by this court and keeping in mind that time and again the Supreme Court had held that post retiral benefit is a succor and a social welfare measure for post retiral period to maintain dignity of a retired employee and not a bounty payable at will in its various judgment, including in V. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala and another; (2020) 8 SCC106.

11. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the arena of merits of the present case and as such, the parties are free to agitate all their rights & contention as is permissible under law before the competent authority, who shall decide the matter de novo keeping in view the documents & judgments relied upon by the parties. The competent authority shall decide the issue expeditiously within four weeks of supply of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to the parties, keeping in mind that the petitioner is claiming retiral benefits from the date of his superannuation on 31.12.2002.

12. The writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. . November 27 , 2025 Anuj Singh (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri J.N.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ran Vijai Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer and Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the state-respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Class IV Employee i.e. Peon/Messenger on

05.02.1970 in the Junior High School Sultanpur Khera, Block-Sataon, District- Raebareli in the pay scale of Rs.20-1/2- 25, which was pay scale of Class-IV Employee in the year 1970. According to him, he was transferred during his tenure from one place to another and ultimately he retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2002 and all through his entire 2 WRIA No. 5860 of 2004 tenure of employment, he has been continuously working on the said post. It has further been submitted that by the learned Counsel that although as per the Service Book, the petitioner has been absorbed as a regular employee, however post his retirement, the retiral benefits were not granted to him and as such the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition with the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to release the post retiral benefits to the petitioner i.e. pension, gratuity, general provident fund, group insurance and leave encashment etc. forthwith w.e.f. the date of his retirement which is due after retirement of the petitioner i.e.

31.12.2002 with compound interest at the rate of 12% per annum. ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to give arrears of salary to the petitioner fixing his salary in the regular pay scale with effect from the date services of the petitioner were transferred to the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board and to give other consequential benefits. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2004 contained in Annexure No.8 to the writ petition."

3. Learned counsel has also relied on various annexures/documents including the experience certificate, extract of service book etc. to substantiate his claim for the aforesaid post retiral benefits.

4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment dated 05.07.2013, which has been passed in Service Single No. 5383 of 2005 (Kalika Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary Basic Shiksha) and has submitted that the facts of the said judgment are squarely applicable to the present case and the petitioner would be satisfied, in case this Court directs the District Basic Education Officer, Raebareli to decide the present writ petition as a representation in light of the said judgment and in a time bound manner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 has vehemently opposed the said submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has sought to highlight that neither the petitioner was regularized nor absorbed in the regular services and as such the judgment relied upon cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner for claiming any retirement benefits. However, he does not dispute the fact that in case this 3 WRIA No. 5860 of 2004 Court directs the competent authority to consider the present writ petition as a representation, all the aspect of absorption & regularization and its consequential effect, shall be looked into by the competent authority in a time bound manner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the matter is relating to the grant of post retiral benefits like pension, gratuity, G.P.F, leave encashment etc. and have been hanging fire since 31.12.2002. Notices were issued to the respondents in the present writ petition, however, none of these respondents have filed their counter affidavits nor any document had been filed, although time has been sought by the respondents on various occasions. Today, also when the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondents have sought a short accommodation for filing of their respective counter-affidavit along with supporting documents.

7. Prima-facie, this Court was inclined to decide the present writ petition on its own merits, based on the documents filed by the petitioner, however, even the learned Counsel for the petitioner wishes to file certain more documents to supplement his stand taken in the present petition.

8. This Court is not inclined to give any further time to the learned Counsels for the parties nor it appears to this Court that any useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending, in view of the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to consider the present petition as a representation and give consequential effect in the light of the judgment of a coordinate bench of this court in Kalika Prasad Pandey (supra).

9. Be that as it may, in view of the specific prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he will be satisfied, if the matter is remanded to the competent authority to decide the present writ petition as a representation within a time bound manner and keeping in mind that the issue is awaiting for more than two decades to see the light of the day, this Court, hereby, directs the competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a representation of the petitioner and decide the same in view of the rival contention of the parties within four weeks by a speaking order and after giving opportunities of personal hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative. . 4 WRIA No. 5860 of 2004

10. Needless to say, both the parties are granted liberty to supplement their contentions before the competent authority by filing any other documents, judgment etc., which may be required to substantiate their case. The competent Authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner on its own merits, without being influenced by the disposal of the present writ petition by this court and keeping in mind that time and again the Supreme Court had held that post retiral benefit is a succor and a social welfare measure for post retiral period to maintain dignity of a retired employee and not a bounty payable at will in its various judgment, including in V. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala and another; (2020) 8 SCC106.

11. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the arena of merits of the present case and as such, the parties are free to agitate all their rights & contention as is permissible under law before the competent authority, who shall decide the matter de novo keeping in view the documents & judgments relied upon by the parties. The competent authority shall decide the issue expeditiously within four weeks of supply of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to the parties, keeping in mind that the petitioner is claiming retiral benefits from the date of his superannuation on 31.12.2002.

12. The writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. . November 27 , 2025 Anuj Singh (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench