- (1.) List revised. None appeared. I have perused the record.
(2.) Petitioner was working as Seasonal Collection Peon. He was made substantive on 29.11.1996 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2007. The case of the Petitioner is that service rendered by him as seasonal Collection Amin since 20.11.1981 should be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retinal benefits. Reliance is placed on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Board of Revenue and Ors. v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006 1 ESC 611.
(3.) In my view, the submission is thoroughly misconceived. The service rendered as Seasonal Collection Peon does not qualify for pension. No provision has been shown in this regard. In Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, the Division Bench has recorded a clear and categorical finding rejecting the contention of State Government that incumbent was working as Seasonal Collection Peon and on the contrary this Court held that he was actually appointed as Collection Peon on temporary basis. A temporary appointment followed by substantive (permanent) appointment qualifies for pension. That was not a case where incumbent was working as Seasonal Collection Peon. This was the case set up by State Government but not accepted by this Court. This distinction has been pointed out by this Court later on in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14286 of 2008 (Smt. Ramwati N. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 26.11.2010, wherein this Court said as under: Learned Counsel for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order denying pension on the ground of non-completion of 10 years service placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Babu Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2006 8 ADJ 371. However that was a case where the incumbent was appointed on temporary basis and was regularized on 2.5.1995. The department intended to ignore the temporary service rendered by the employee concerned before period of regularization for the purpose of qualifying service and this Court relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Hari Shankar Ashopa v. State of U.P. and Ors.,1989 ACJ 337 and Board of Revenue and Ors. v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006 1 ESC 611 held that Fundamental Rule 56 as amended in 1975 provides retiring pension to a temporary employee also. Meaning thereby the services rendered as a temporary employee will qualify for pension. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable to a case where the incumbent has worked not as a temporary employee but as a seasonal employee, since the service rendered by a seasonal employee is intermittent and cannot be equated with a temporary employee.;