- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. Petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs : " (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the pension and other retiral benefits "like gratuity, provident fund, G. P. F. etc. " to the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the interest at the current rate on the amount of pension and retiral benefits computed till the date of actual payment. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner. "
(2.) THE case of the petitioner, as set-up in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was appointed as Tube- well Operator in the month of June, 1962 but under the state of mental imbalance he resigned on 4-12- 1985 which though he purports to have subsequently withdrawn. But according to the statement made in the counter-affidavit, before the petitioner opted for withdrawal of resignation, it was accepted by the respondents on 31-12-1985. Petitioner thereafter urged even assuming his resignation to have been accepted, he is entitled for pensionary benefits as he has put in 21 years of service with the respondents. This fact has been denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. It is stated in Para 5 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has worked on the post of tube-well operator from 18-11-1976 to 4-12-1985. According to this statement the date of resignation, i. e. , 4-12-1985, is the last day of working of the petitioner and his services are less than 20 years therefore he cannot qualify for pension. The respondents in their counter-affidavit, reply to para 2 of the writ petition have admitted that for the first time petitioner was appointed on 22-7-1964 as runner in Nalkoop Khand-I, Aligarh and thereafter he was appointed afresh on the post of tube-well operator in the same Division on 18-1-1976. According to the statement made in the counter-affidavit 18-1-1967 is the relevant date of appointment and if it is to be taken the relevant date, the services of the petitioner are less than 20 years. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Civil Service Regulations Parts I, IV and X which runs as under : CONDITIONS OF QUALIFYING SERVICe Section III-Second Condition General Principles 368. Service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment. 369. An establishment, the duties of which are not continuous but are limited to certain fixed periods in each year, is not a temporary establishment. Service in such an establishment, including the period during which the establishment is not employed, qualifies; but the concession of counting as service the period during which the establishment is not employed does not apply to an officer who was not on actual duty when the establishment was discharged, after completion of its work, or to an officer who was not on actual duty on the first day on which the establishment was given re-employed (sic employment ). 370. An officer may count continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post except - (i) periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment. (ii) periods of service in a work-charged establishment, and (iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the aforesaid it appears that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Regulations 370. It has been admitted by the respondents in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Runner on 22-7-1964 and subsequently followed by regular appointment as tube-well operator on 18-1-1976 which is not within the exception of Regulation 370 of Civil Service Regulations and if the same is not covered, it gives a right to the petitioner to get pension even assuming his resignation is accepted in the month of December, 1985. No other point was urged. The view of the respondents that the petitioner has put in less than 20 years of service, is rejected. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for pension in the light of the observations made in this judgment from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Petition allowed. .;