Abdul Moin, j. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) There is a consensus at the Bar that the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Service Single No.7259 of 2014 In re: Kashi Ram v. State of U.P. and others decided on 24.4.2019. For the sake of convenience, judgment and order dated 24.4.2019 is reproduced below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohit Dewedi, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner. 3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that he had been appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 04.07.1975 and continued in the said capacity. He was regularized through an order dated 27.06.2011, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition and thereafter retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2011. It is contended that despite the petitioner having rendered 36 years of service till his retirement, he has not been paid the pension and other retrial dues and hence the present petition. 4. Learned Standing counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit argues that as per the Rules, 1961 read with the relevant Civil Service Regulations, 10 years qualifying service is a sine quo none for payment of pension and other retiral dues and the petitioner having only been regularized on 27.06.2011 and having retired on 30.11.2011 i.e after having rendered only 5 months of service would thus not be entitled for pension and other retiral dues. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P and Ors v. Indra Pal and Ors. passed in Writ Petition No. 8113 (SB) of 2017 decided on 18.04.2017 to argue that this Court with respect to one Sri Indra Pal who was also regularized along with the petitioner through the order dated 27.06.2011 has been held entitled for payment and pension and other retiral dues under Fundamental Rule 56. It is also argued that the said judgment has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition. 18145 of 2017 on 28.07.2017. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents State being a model employer is expected to extend the benefit of the judgment in the case of Indra Pal (supra) to the petitioner also. 6. Heard learned counsels for the contesting parties and perused the records. 7. From the perusal of record, it clearly comes out that the petitioner was appointed as a Seasonal Collection Amin on 04.07.1975 and has only been regularized through order dated 27.06.2011, copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition. The regularization order of the petitioner also contains the name of one Sri Indra Pal who has also been regularized along with the petitioner. The petitioner has subsequently retired on 30.11.2011 and thus taking into consideration the relevant provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 which requires a minimum of ten years of qualifying service, he was not given any pension and other retrial dues. However, this aspect of the matter has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Indra Pal (supra) wherein this Court taking into consideration Fundamental Rule 56 as inserted and substituted by U.P Act No. 24 of 1975 has held that even a temporary Government servant who is allowed to retire would be provided with retiring pension meaning thereby that temporary Government servant who also retires from service would also be entitled for pension and other retiral dues. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Indra Pal (supra) are reproduced as under:- "2. The writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 17.11.2016 passed by State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 1328 of 2016, whereby Tribunal has directed that claimant-respondent should be paid pension and other retiral benefits treating him that he retired under Fundamental Rule 56 and was entitled for retiring pension and other benefits in accordance with rules. 3. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that claimant-respondent was only a Seasonal Collection Peon and, therefore, was not entitled for pension. 4. However, photocopy of service book filed on page 71 of paper book shows nature of employment of claimant-respondent as temporary. A temporary Government servant is entitled for pension under Fundamental Rule 56 as inserted and substituted by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1975. 5. This question was considered in the light of the amendment made in Fundamental Rule 56 read with Article 424 Chapter 18 of Civil Service Regulations, and, interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Hari Shankar Asopa v. State of U.P. and others, 1989 ACJ 337 and it was held that by amendment in Fundamental Rule 56 even a temporary Government servant was allowed to retire and Clause (e) thereof provide for retiring pension to all such persons meaning thereby the same would also include a temporary Government servant. This view has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Board of Revenue and others v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006(1) ESC 611. 6. It may be that initially claimant-respondent was a Seasonal Collection Peon but when he was subsequently employed temporarily as Collection Peon and continued in same category till retirement, he became entitled for pension and other benefits under Fundamental Rule 56, particularly in view of declaration made therein that retiring pension is available to a person who retired under Fundamental Rule 56." 8. The said judgment in the case of Indra Pal (supra) has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition No. 18145 of 2017 on 28.07.2017. Thus, it clearly comes out that taking into consideration the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Indra Pal (supra). the petitioner would be entitled for grant of pension and other retiral dues. 9. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to District Magistrate, Unnao, i.e respondent no. 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of pension and other retiral dues taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Indra Pal (supra) and the observation made above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
(3.) Taking into consideration the consensus between the parties, the present petition is disposed of providing that petitioner would also be entitled for the benefit of the judgment of this Court in the case of Kashi Ram (supra). Let the benefit of said judgment be extended to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.;