S.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel as well as learned Counsel for the BSA.
(2.) IN view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the Special Appeal No. 1858 of 2008, State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gaya Ram, the issue stands settled by this Court, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension cannot be accepted. The relevant paras are quoted below: There is a difference in the nature of the appointment of temporary employee vis -a -vis an employee who is appointed on fixed salary. A temporary appointment can be made against a permanent or temporary post, whereas for the appointment on fixed pay there is no requirement of a post. Thus there is a major difference in the nature of appointment of two classes of employees. Thus, the judgment in the case of Hans Raj Pandey (supra), in so far as it holds that the period of service rendered on fixed pay, prior to regularization, shall also be added in his qualifying service, cannot be upheld. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in the service -book of the petitioner the word "temporary" has been mentioned, he was a temporary employee. Petitioner has also produced photo copy of the service -book, which we have perused. From the perusal of the service -book it is clear that the respondent was initially appointed on fixed emolument of Rs. 165/ -per month and the said fixed emolument was subsequently increased w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to Rs. 750/ -, which emolument was paid till he was regularized. While fixing the scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 it has been mentioned that his salary was Rs. 750/ -. In the order dated 02.06.2005 the Finance and Account Officer has also noted that the respondent, prior to regularization, was working on fixed pay of Rs. 750/ -. The case of petitioner is identical to the case of Gaya Ram (supra) and in the said case the respondent was appointed on the fixed emoluments and so is the case of the petitioner as well.
(3.) SINCE the petitioner has not completed ten years of service, it would be open to the petitioner to move the Government for relaxation of service period as provided in the aforesaid case.;