High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raghurai Giri v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 49816 of 2002  RD-AH 11886 (20 July 2006)
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 order dated 25.2.2002 passed by respondent no.3, Annexure-6 to the writ petition.
The petitioner was appointed in 1968 on the post of electrician on work charge establishment of Irrigation Department. The petitioner was promoted in 1978 as senior electrician. By order dated 20.3.1992 the petitioner was promoted from the post of senior electrician to the post of Mistri in regular establishment. The petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2001 after completing about 33 years of service. After retirement the petitioner submitted an application for payment of retiremental benefit as well as pension to the petitioner. As the pension to the petitioner was not paid, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court as Writ Petition No.4509 of 2002 which was finally disposed of vide its order dated 31.1.2002 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.
In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide its order dated 25.2.2002 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension on the ground that as the petitioner has not completed 10 years of regular service, therefore, he is not entitled for the pension. The petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the writ petition has already been decided by this Court in Writ Petition reported in 2006 (4) ADJ Page 709 (All.) Ram Pratap Shukla versus State of U.P. and others. It has been submitted on the basis of the aforesaid judgment that this Court has already considered the regular service and has come to the conclusion that if the person has worked for a considerable period, he is entitled for pension.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel. I have also perused the record. In my opinion the controversy regarding payment of pension has already been decided in the aforesaid judgment of which the relevant para 5 is reproduced below:
"5. The regular means steady or uniform in course practice or occurrence not subject to unexplained or irrational variation. The right of the petitioner flows from rendering of service for such a long period, which is a statutory right of the petitioner and cannot be ignored in any manner."
In view of the aforesaid fact the order passed by respondent dated 25.2.2002, Annexure-6 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and the petitioner is entitled for pension. The petitioner submits that the gratuity amount which has been paid to the petitioner has wrongly been calculated which is apparent from the averment made in the counter affidavit. It is provided that the petitioner may file an application giving the correct figure of gratuity with certified copy of this order as well as copy of the aforesaid judgment within a period of three weeks before the concerned respondent and respondent no.2 will calculate the amount of gratuity and the pension and the same be paid to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. It is also provided that the petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of payment.
W.P. No. 49816 of 2002
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.