Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.L. JHA versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.L. Jha v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Director Of Industries & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 11598 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 11878 (20 July 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 30.9.1999 and 6.11.2001 passed by respondents  no.2 and 1, annexures-4 and 5 respectively to the writ petition. Further prayer is for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the pension to the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Instructor and worked up to 28.2.1970 and his services were retrenched by the respondents. Thereafter on 1.3.1970 the services of the petitioner were absorbed as Senior Instructor under the U.P. Small Scale Industries Corporation Ltd. Since then the petitioner worked in the department. After completing 23 years of continuous service, he retired from service in January 1985, but the pension to the petitioner has not been paid only on the ground that as the petitioner has not completed 10 years of regular service, therefore, he is not entitled for pension.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The controversy involved in the writ petition is fully covered by the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1995 (6) SCC Page 227, A.P. Srivastava Vs. Union of India and others and paras 5 and 6 have been relied upon which are quoted below:

"5. In view of the rival submissions at the bar, the question for consideration is whether there is any rationale behind the rule disentitling pension to a government servant when an order of compulsory retirement is passed in exercise of power under Rule 56 (i) of the Fundamental Rules? As has been noticed earlier after completion of a particular period of service the employer has a right to compulsorily retire the employee in public interest and similarly the employee has a right to voluntarily retire on giving three months' notice.  It has been held by this Court time and again that the  pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet with the employer.  It is earned for rendering a long service and is often described as deferred portion of payment for past services.  It is in fact in the nature of social security plan provided for a superannuated government servant.  If a temporary government servant who  is rendered 20 years of service, is entitled to pension, if he voluntarily retires, there is no justification for denying the right to him when he is  required to retire by the employer in the public interest.  In other words, the condition precedent for being entitled to pension in case of a temporary permanent servant is rendering of 20 years of service.

6. In view of the legal position that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and pension is a right of the employee for services rendered, we see no justification for denying such right to a temporary permanent servant merely on the ground that he was required to retire by the employer in exercise of power under Rule 56 (i) of the Fundamental Rules.  In our considered opinion a temporary government servant would be entitled to pension after he has completed more than 20 years of service even the is required to retire by the employer in exercise of power under Rule 56(i) of the Fundamental Rules.  

In view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner submits that the Apex Court has held that if a temporary government servant who has rendered 20 years of service, is entitled to pension.

In view of above, a mandamus is issued to respondent no.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner in view of the Apex Court judgment and if the petitioner fulfills the requirement according to law as laid down by the Apex Court, the pension be paid to the petitioner, if possible within three months.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

20.7.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P.No. 11598  of 2002


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.