V.K.Shukla - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court requesting therein that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to fix pension of the petitioner by treading him as regular/permanent Collection Amin and to disburse the same regularly every month and also to disburse the arrears of pension w.e.f. 1.5.2007 till date within a period to be specified by this Court.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case as is reflected from the pleadings as set out that petitioner was granted appointment as Seasonal Collection Amin in Tehsil Kalpi of District Jalaun in the year 1976 for the first time. The said seasonal appointment was followed by successive seasonal appointments granted to the petitioner in Tehsil Kalpi during the years 1976 to 1986. Petitioner claims that in the year 1986 petitioner alongwith others was granted adhoc appointment as Collection Amin in regular pay scale applicable to the said post. Petitioner has further contended that service of the petitioner and other similarly circumstanced Collection Amin were terminated by the district authority in the year 1989. At the said stage petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10802 of 1989 (Kashi Prasad and another v. District Magistrate and others) wherein interim order was passed directing continuance of petitioner in service. Petitioner claims that pursuant to said order, he continued to function as Collection Amin. Petitioner has further stated that said writ petition was finally decided on 28.11.1989 with following order: "The two petitioners were appointed as Collection Amins in Tehsil Orai, district Jalaun by the Tehsildar and Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Orai. The petitioners have alleged that they were functioning as Collection Amins since 31.8.1978 and that by passing fake orders from time to time their services were broken and again appointments were given. On the assertion that the petitioners were entitled to be regularized the petitioners sought relief 'C which reads as under: "issue a writ order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioners in service on the post of Collection Amin and not to interfere in their functioning on the said post." Paragraph 7 of the counter recites that appointments on substantive vacancies were being considered by the authorities in accordance with U.P. Collection Amins Seva Niyamawali 1984 read with the forth amendment incorporated in 1984. In view of what has been stated in the counter -affidavit itself it appears that cases of petitioners for regularization are receiving attention of consideration of the authorities and as the petitioners are continuing on the post of Collection Amin under the stay orders granted by this Court on 18.5.1989, we need do nothing more and we direct the concerned respondents to consider the regularisation of the petitioners at an early date, in accordance with law applicable to the same. The petitioners will continue till final orders in respect of regularization are not passed. If however, the petitioners are found not entitled to be regularized the stay order granted by this Court will come to an end automatically." Petitioner has further stated that thereafter ah order was passed on 31.1.1990 wherein reference was given of the order passed by this Court, that service of petitioner be not dispensed with merely on the ground of petitioners service being ad hoc in nature, and service can be dispensed with on other ground. Petitioner continued to function but had never been regularized and ultimately has attained the age of superannuation on 30.4.2007. Petitioner thereafter has contended that various other incumbents have been regularized as such exercise be undertaken for consideration of his claim also for confirmation and for ensuring payment of pension and gratuity etc. Petitioner at this said stage has rushed to this Court with the relief quoted in the prayer part. Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged and thereafter present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri Sidharth Khare, Advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case on account of inaction on the part of the respondents petitioner was not confirmed and the proceedings were pending and petitioner in the meantime attained the age of superannuation, in this background as petitioner is not at all at fault, as such petitioner cannot be denied pension, and in the facts of the case, it has to be accepted that petitioner has to his credit, ten years of regular service. Countering the said submission learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that services of petitioner had never been regularized, as such no benefit can be extended to petitioner as has been prayed for.;