High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Amethi whereby he has rejected the representation of the petitioner for grant of pension holding that the petitioner has been regularized only with effect from 9.10.2012 and, hence, on date the when he retired on 29.02.2020 he had rendered only seven years, four months and 19 days' regular services which is not sufficient for grant of pension.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing aforesaid order has submitted that on the previous occasion had approached this Court with the prayer to be treated as regular Collection Amin with effect from June, 1986 for the purpose of salary and other service benefits. This Court on 31.07.2012 by means of the judgment and order while disposing of the said writ petition extended the benefit of the judgment and order rendered in writ petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001 to the petitioners.

4. It is noticed that this Court in writ petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001 considered the case of similarly situated Collection Amins had allowed the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioners had worked as regular Collection Amins and were selected under Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins Service Rules 1974. The Court had passed a direction that the petitioner be "treated as regular Collection Amin" in service since 5.6.1986 for the purpose of seniority etc.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after being declared to be regular Collection Amin the respondents notionally promoted him to the post of Revenue Inspector by means of order dated 18.11.2021, since then the petitioner is considered to be working on the post of Revenue Inspector till the date he superannuated on 29.02.2020. It has been submitted that the impugned order dated 06.07.2022 is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the direction issued by this Court where considering the factual matrix of the case and the service record of the petitioner he has been declared to be a regular employee. Not only the judgment of this Court was given effect to by the opposite parties they have included him in seniority list of Collection Amins and he was also considered and notionally promoted vide order dated 18.11.2021 to the post of Revenue Inspector. There is no doubt that the services of the petitioner were regularized and he has been treated to be a member of service and only because of the said fact that the opposite parties also proceeded to give him benefit of promotion. It is noticed that once the respondents themselves have considered the petitioner to be a regular employee then his regular services cannot be ignored and are liable to be counted as qualifying period for the purposes of grant of pension. He cannot be denied pension treating that his services were regularized only on 9.10.2012.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has further relied upon the judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by this Court in writ petition No.619 (S/S) of 2014 (Mohd. Usman Ansari Vs. State of U.P.) as well as upon the judgment in the case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others passed on 3.8.2017 as well as the order passed in Special Appeal Defective No.196 of 2018 upholding the judgment and order dated 3.8.2017 passed in Rajendra Prasad Tiwari (supra) and claims parity of these judgments.

7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned order by submitting that there is no infirmity in same as the petitioner was regularized on 9.10.2012 and he has merged only slightly more than seven years of services and, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of payment of post retiral dues.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court where the writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be treated as regular Collection Amin since 5th June, 1986. The said order attained finality after dismissal of the Special Appeal Defective No.334 of 2016 on 22.01.2020 and no Special Leave Petition was filed against the order dated 22.01.2020 before the Apex Court. The petitioner retired on

29.2.2020 and subsequently provided promotion on 18.11.2021 to the post of Revenue Inspector. It is noticed that consequent to the judgment of this Court the services of the petitioner has always been treated to be regular and, hence, in the above factual matrix of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not in regular services since 5.6.1986 till his superannuation. In fact, the petitioner has rendered more than thirty three years of regular services and not seven years four months as stated in the impugned order.

10. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has completed much more than the minimum required number of years as regular employee and, hence, he is entitled to be paid pension.

11. The writ petition is allowed.

12. The impugned order dated 06.07.2022 is quashed.

13. The opposite parties are directed to grant the benefit of pension and other service benefits to the petitioner to which he is entitled, expeditiously say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 22.1.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Amethi whereby he has rejected the representation of the petitioner for grant of pension holding that the petitioner has been regularized only with effect from 9.10.2012 and, hence, on date the when he retired on 29.02.2020 he had rendered only seven years, four months and 19 days' regular services which is not sufficient for grant of pension.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing aforesaid order has submitted that on the previous occasion had approached this Court with the prayer to be treated as regular Collection Amin with effect from June, 1986 for the purpose of salary and other service benefits. This Court on 31.07.2012 by means of the judgment and order while disposing of the said writ petition extended the benefit of the judgment and order rendered in writ petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001 to the petitioners.

4. It is noticed that this Court in writ petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001 considered the case of similarly situated Collection Amins had allowed the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioners had worked as regular Collection Amins and were selected under Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins Service Rules 1974. The Court had passed a direction that the petitioner be "treated as regular Collection Amin" in service since 5.6.1986 for the purpose of seniority etc.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after being declared to be regular Collection Amin the respondents notionally promoted him to the post of Revenue Inspector by means of order dated 18.11.2021, since then the petitioner is considered to be working on the post of Revenue Inspector till the date he superannuated on 29.02.2020. It has been submitted that the impugned order dated 06.07.2022 is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the direction issued by this Court where considering the factual matrix of the case and the service record of the petitioner he has been declared to be a regular employee. Not only the judgment of this Court was given effect to by the opposite parties they have included him in seniority list of Collection Amins and he was also considered and notionally promoted vide order dated 18.11.2021 to the post of Revenue Inspector. There is no doubt that the services of the petitioner were regularized and he has been treated to be a member of service and only because of the said fact that the opposite parties also proceeded to give him benefit of promotion. It is noticed that once the respondents themselves have considered the petitioner to be a regular employee then his regular services cannot be ignored and are liable to be counted as qualifying period for the purposes of grant of pension. He cannot be denied pension treating that his services were regularized only on 9.10.2012.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has further relied upon the judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by this Court in writ petition No.619 (S/S) of 2014 (Mohd. Usman Ansari Vs. State of U.P.) as well as upon the judgment in the case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others passed on 3.8.2017 as well as the order passed in Special Appeal Defective No.196 of 2018 upholding the judgment and order dated 3.8.2017 passed in Rajendra Prasad Tiwari (supra) and claims parity of these judgments.

7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned order by submitting that there is no infirmity in same as the petitioner was regularized on 9.10.2012 and he has merged only slightly more than seven years of services and, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of payment of post retiral dues.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court where the writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be treated as regular Collection Amin since 5th June, 1986. The said order attained finality after dismissal of the Special Appeal Defective No.334 of 2016 on 22.01.2020 and no Special Leave Petition was filed against the order dated 22.01.2020 before the Apex Court. The petitioner retired on

29.2.2020 and subsequently provided promotion on 18.11.2021 to the post of Revenue Inspector. It is noticed that consequent to the judgment of this Court the services of the petitioner has always been treated to be regular and, hence, in the above factual matrix of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not in regular services since 5.6.1986 till his superannuation. In fact, the petitioner has rendered more than thirty three years of regular services and not seven years four months as stated in the impugned order.

10. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has completed much more than the minimum required number of years as regular employee and, hence, he is entitled to be paid pension.

11. The writ petition is allowed.

12. The impugned order dated 06.07.2022 is quashed.

13. The opposite parties are directed to grant the benefit of pension and other service benefits to the petitioner to which he is entitled, expeditiously say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 22.1.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench