- (1.) The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 16.3.2009 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.30952 of 2007 (Ram Sunder Ram vs. State of UP and ors) wherein he has proceeded to dispose of the writ petition, relying upon the judgement passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Board of Revenue and ors vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay reported in, 2006 1 ESC 611 (All) (DB), and directed the respondent no.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner after taking into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner on the post of Temporary Collection Peon from 4.2.1981 to 1.1.1990 for the purpose of computing his pension.
(2.) Shri Pankaj Rai, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants-respondents has contended that the petitioner-respondent had worked as Seasonal Collection Peon in Tehsil Bairya, District Ballia from 2.2.1976 to 30.9.1991 with some artificial breaks. Again he worked from 1.12.1981 to 1.1.1990 on Temporary Seasonal Collection Peon. He did not hold any regular post and worked on non-pensionable establishment on the availability of work and fund. The provisions of Government order dated 13.12.1977 are applicable only to the temporary officiating employee and not to the seasonal employee and since the petitioner-respondent was seasonal employee, therefore, the Government order dated 13.12.1977 is not applicable to his case. His appointment as Seasonal Collection Peon cannot be termed as temporary or permanent appointment against a post. The Government order dated 1.7.1989 provides for pension to the persons, who were appointed on temporary basis and had worked for 10 years of regular service. The petitioner-respondent was not appointed against a regular vacancy either on temporary basis or permanent basis.
(3.) Shri Pankaj Rai further submits that Articles 352, 361, 368, 370 and 424 of Civil Service Regulations relating to pension (as adopted for application in Uttar Pradesh) do not conceive a seasonal employee like the petitioner-respondent for the purposes of grant of pension, and therefore, the period from 4.2.1981 to 1.1.1990 (Temporary Collection Peon) cannot be clubbed. The finding/conclusion drawn by learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, is contrary to the facts and law. Learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgement in Board of Revenue vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay ignoring that the facts of the present case are entirely different from that of the case of Prasidh Narain Upadhyay inasmuch as the case of Prasidh Narain Upadhyay related to the appointment on temporary basis whereas the case of petitioner-respondent is of Seasonal Collection Peon. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28770 of 2006 (Hawaldar Singh vs. Board of Revenue and ors) decided on 26.10.2007 it was held that a seasonal engagement does not qualify for pension in any manner under the provisions of law and as such, this Court should come to rescue and reprieve the appellants.;