Raghunath Prasad v. State of U.P. & Ors., which is similar and identical writ petition
Case Details
1. Heard Sri Karuna Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State- opposite parties no.1, 3 & 4 and Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.09.2019 & 27.07.2019 passed by opp. No.4 which is contained as Annexure No.1 & 2 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opp/parties to fix the pay scale of the petitioner on the basis of entire service length by counting the past services rendered by the petitioner in parent department and also to calculate the service of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in P.K. Srivastava case judgment dated 05.07.2013 in writ petition no.3435 (S/S) of 2004. (ii-a) The opposite parties may also be directed to continue the salary of the petitioner by fixing the pay scale of the petitioner on the basis of entire service length by counting the past services rendered by the petitioner in the parent department. (ii-b) Issue a writ, order or direction to the opposite parties to calculate and pay his pension and other retiral benefits on the basis of entire past services rendered by the petitioner in parent department"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and his sons, Jitendra Kumar Verma and Atul Kumar Verma have been substituted as petitioners no.1/1 and 1/2 on 13.09.2024. Further attention has been drawn towards the judgment and order dated 17.10.2019 passed by this Court in Service Single No.28197 of 2019, Raghunath Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., which is similar and identical writ petition with the present writ petition and the aforesaid writ petition was allowed. The judgment and order dated 17.10.2019 in re; Raghunath Prasad (supra) reads as under:- "The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.08.2019 passed by opposite party no. 4 which is contained as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to calculate the pension of the petitioner by adding past services rendered by the petitioner in the parent department and to pay the arrears of pension and other consequential benefits in the light of the judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court in P.K. Sharma's case judgment dated 05.07.2013 in writ petition no. 3435 (S/S) of 2004." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the concerned authority in a mechanical way without considering the law settled by this Court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court. He further submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager on 22.11.1983 in of office of opposite party no.2. Later on, the petitioner was appointed on regular post of peon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Lucknow Divisional Development Corporation Limited Lucknow was closed in the year 1992 and after closer of the Divisional Development Corporation Limited, the petitioner was declared as retrenched employee vide letter dated 26.12.1992 and vide Govt. Order dated 18.04.1994, the petitioner was given regular appointment on the post of Peon. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the appointment on the post of Patra-Vahak in the office of District Development Officer, the petitioner was transferred from District Sitapur to District Hardoi in the year 1995 in the office of Development Officer, Hardoi on the same post of process server and the petitioner did his duties with full satisfaction on the authorities without any complaint till his superannuation, i.e. 31.12.2016. The said impugned order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the District Development Officer, Hardoi in the light of the Government Orders dated 14.12.2001 and 05.11.2004 and it is admittedly stated that the said Government orders are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others i.e. Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2019 in which the Hon'ble supreme Court has held that past services rendered by the petitioner shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out similar order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court which is appended as Annexure-7 with the paper book in which the impugned order has been passed by the concerned authority is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law settled. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner on the legal point that the past services may be considered for the purpose of calculation of pension and he has also agreed to the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Service Single No. 3435 of 2004, which is appended as Annexure-7 with the paper book. In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 03.08.2019 appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to fix the pension after considering the length of services rendered by the petitioner in the Divisional Development Corporation Limited Lucknow. In view of above, the instant writ petition is accordingly allowed."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that benefit of the aforesaid judgement and order may be granted to the present petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have not disputed the fact that the present writ petition is similar and identical with the case of Raghunath Prasad (supra).
6. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in terms of judgement and order dated 17.10.2019 in re; Raghunath Prasad (supra).
7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 09.09.2019 & 27.07.2019 passed by opposite party no.4 (Annexures No.1 & 2) are hereby quashed and the opposite parties are directed to provide consequential service benefits to the legal heirs, who have been substituted in this writ petition, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioners would be entitled for the interest on the delayed payment, as per law. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1. Heard Sri Karuna Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State- opposite parties no.1, 3 & 4 and Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.09.2019 & 27.07.2019 passed by opp. No.4 which is contained as Annexure No.1 & 2 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opp/parties to fix the pay scale of the petitioner on the basis of entire service length by counting the past services rendered by the petitioner in parent department and also to calculate the service of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in P.K. Srivastava case judgment dated 05.07.2013 in writ petition no.3435 (S/S) of 2004. (ii-a) The opposite parties may also be directed to continue the salary of the petitioner by fixing the pay scale of the petitioner on the basis of entire service length by counting the past services rendered by the petitioner in the parent department. (ii-b) Issue a writ, order or direction to the opposite parties to calculate and pay his pension and other retiral benefits on the basis of entire past services rendered by the petitioner in parent department"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and his sons, Jitendra Kumar Verma and Atul Kumar Verma have been substituted as petitioners no.1/1 and 1/2 on 13.09.2024. Further attention has been drawn towards the judgment and order dated 17.10.2019 passed by this Court in Service Single No.28197 of 2019, Raghunath Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., which is similar and identical writ petition with the present writ petition and the aforesaid writ petition was allowed. The judgment and order dated 17.10.2019 in re; Raghunath Prasad (supra) reads as under:- "The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.08.2019 passed by opposite party no. 4 which is contained as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to calculate the pension of the petitioner by adding past services rendered by the petitioner in the parent department and to pay the arrears of pension and other consequential benefits in the light of the judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court in P.K. Sharma's case judgment dated 05.07.2013 in writ petition no. 3435 (S/S) of 2004." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the concerned authority in a mechanical way without considering the law settled by this Court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court. He further submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager on 22.11.1983 in of office of opposite party no.2. Later on, the petitioner was appointed on regular post of peon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Lucknow Divisional Development Corporation Limited Lucknow was closed in the year 1992 and after closer of the Divisional Development Corporation Limited, the petitioner was declared as retrenched employee vide letter dated 26.12.1992 and vide Govt. Order dated 18.04.1994, the petitioner was given regular appointment on the post of Peon. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the appointment on the post of Patra-Vahak in the office of District Development Officer, the petitioner was transferred from District Sitapur to District Hardoi in the year 1995 in the office of Development Officer, Hardoi on the same post of process server and the petitioner did his duties with full satisfaction on the authorities without any complaint till his superannuation, i.e. 31.12.2016. The said impugned order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the District Development Officer, Hardoi in the light of the Government Orders dated 14.12.2001 and 05.11.2004 and it is admittedly stated that the said Government orders are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others i.e. Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2019 in which the Hon'ble supreme Court has held that past services rendered by the petitioner shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out similar order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court which is appended as Annexure-7 with the paper book in which the impugned order has been passed by the concerned authority is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law settled. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner on the legal point that the past services may be considered for the purpose of calculation of pension and he has also agreed to the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Service Single No. 3435 of 2004, which is appended as Annexure-7 with the paper book. In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 03.08.2019 appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to fix the pension after considering the length of services rendered by the petitioner in the Divisional Development Corporation Limited Lucknow. In view of above, the instant writ petition is accordingly allowed."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that benefit of the aforesaid judgement and order may be granted to the present petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have not disputed the fact that the present writ petition is similar and identical with the case of Raghunath Prasad (supra).
6. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in terms of judgement and order dated 17.10.2019 in re; Raghunath Prasad (supra).
7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 09.09.2019 & 27.07.2019 passed by opposite party no.4 (Annexures No.1 & 2) are hereby quashed and the opposite parties are directed to provide consequential service benefits to the legal heirs, who have been substituted in this writ petition, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioners would be entitled for the interest on the delayed payment, as per law. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench