DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Vyas Narain Shukla the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vinay Mishra learned counsel holding brief of Smt. Nalini Jain for the respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order passed by the opposite parties denying the payment of post retiral dues. The brief fact of the case is that petitioner initially appointed on the post of peon on 1.8.1964 in Girls Junior High School, Amethi district Sultanpur. On 22.11.1967, petitioner was transferred to Girls Junior High School, Gauriganj, Sultanpur. With effect from 1.8.1972 petitioner was being paid regular pay scale admissible under Rules. Petitioner was also permitted to cross Efficiency Bar in the year 1981. From 1.1.1986 when salary of the employees were revised in pursuance to pay commission report the petitioner's pay scale was also revised to 750-940. However, petitioner was being paid salary at the rate of Rs. 750 per month. After serving the department continuously from 1964, the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.1997. After retirement petitioner had advanced his claim for payment of post retiral dues. When the post retiral dues not paid to the petitioner, he has filed Writ Petition No. 330 (S/S) of 2000. The writ petition was disposed of finally vide order dated 21.4.2005 directing the opposite parties to decide the petitioner's representation. While considering the petitioner's case in pursuance to order passed by this Court the District Basic Education Officer held that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of post retiral dues as he has served as regular employee only for one year three months, Le., from 24.7.1996 to 31.10.1997. Under Regulation 447 of the Civil Service Regulation only those employees are entitled for payment of post retiral dues who had rendered 10 years of service as regular/permanent employee.
(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned order it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Vyas Narain Shukla that petitioner had served continuously against regular vacancies and he was transferred from time to time from one school to other school owned by the Government. Accordingly the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is even if no formal order was passed before the age of superannuation to make permanent or confirm the services, petitioner is entitled for payment of post retiral dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in Union of India and another v. R. C. D'Souza, 1987 (2) SCC 211 and Sabir Ali and another v. State of U. P. and others, 2002 (20) LCD 879: 2002 (2) AWC 1566.;