# Kaushal Kishore Chaubey & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 985
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-08
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 5817 of 2020
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kaushal-kishore-chaubey-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46690
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Pension/Retiral Benefits -
U.P. Civil Service Regulations - Regulation -
368 & 370 - Uttar Pradesh Retirement
Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005 - U.P.
Retirement
Benefit
Rules,
1961
-
The
services rendered by an employee either as
work
charged
employee
or
Seasonal
Collection Amin are to be counted for
granting the pensionary benefit to them, and
the nomenclature of their appointment, be a
daily wager, temporary or whatever, is not
material to consider their claim for grant of
pensionary and retiral benefits. (Para 22)

The pensionary provisions must be given a
liberal construction being a social welfare
measure; it does not mean that something can
be given contrary to rules, but the purpose of
grant of such pension must be kept in mind
while interpreting pensionary provision. The
grant of pension is to facilitate a retired
Government employee to live with dignity in
his winter of life, therefore, such benefit should
not be denied to an employee unreasonably on
mere technicalities. (Para 16 to 20)

In the instant case is that the petitioners have
been
engaged
as
Seasonal
Collection
Amin
between the year 1976 to 1990 and their services
have been regularized between the years 2011 to
2016 and they have been extended all the benefits
like the revision of pay with the approval of the
competent authority as paid to the regular
Collection Amin. The duties which have been
discharged by the petitioners while working as
Seasonal Collection Amin was similar to the duties
discharged by regular Collection Amin, and on
continuance and satisfactory services rendered by
them as Seasonal Collection Amin, they have been
regularized in service as per Rules. Thus, it is
evident that though the nomenclature and
nature of appointment to the petitioners
were Seasonal Collection Amin, but as a
matter
of
fact,
they
meet
all
the
requirements to be treated as temporary
employees. (Para 21)

The services rendered by the petitioners as Seasonal
Collection Amin cannot be ignored for extending the
benefits of pension and other retiral benefits to them
on the pretext that their appointment is to be treated
from the date of regularization and not from the date
of their engagement as work charged employee.
(Para 24)
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India: Article 14 - Petitioners have
worked for decades as Seasonal Collection Amin
discharging the same duty which has been discharged
by the regular Collection Amin and have been
extended same benefits which have been extended to
the regular Collection Amin, therefore, denying them
the benefit of pension and other benefits which have
been extended to Regular Collection Amin would not
only be arbitrary but against the concept of the right
to equality as enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution
of India. (Para 23)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

11 All. Kaushal Kishore Chaubey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
985
Each case, thus, was required to be considered
on its merit.

42. The broad criteria, which are not only
applicable generally for the aforementioned
purpose, were required to be followed but there
cannot be any doubt or dispute that the criteria
laid down by the State was imperative in
character. Thus, the Federation adopted the
rules and circulars made or issued by the State
Government. The Federation itself having
formulated the criteria required to be applied
for passing orders of compulsory retirement
was, thus, bound thereby."

32. This judgment is also of no help to the
petitioner as the facts in which order of
compulsory retirement was quashed by the High
Court and affirmed by the Apex Court are
entirely different and not akin to the facts in the
present case.

33. Thus, for the reasons given above, the
writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly,
dismissed with no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)12ILR A985
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 5817 of 2020

Kaushal Kishore Chaubey & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Syed Wajid Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Pension/Retiral Benefits -
U.P. Civil Service Regulations - Regulation -
368 & 370 - Uttar Pradesh Retirement
Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005 - U.P.
Retirement
Benefit
Rules,
1961
-
The
services rendered by an employee either as
work
charged
employee
or
Seasonal
Collection Amin are to be counted for
granting the pensionary benefit to them, and
the nomenclature of their appointment, be a
daily wager, temporary or whatever, is not
material to consider their claim for grant of
pensionary and retiral benefits. (Para 22)

The pensionary provisions must be given a
liberal construction being a social welfare
measure; it does not mean that something can
be given contrary to rules, but the purpose of
grant of such pension must be kept in mind
while interpreting pensionary provision. The
grant of pension is to facilitate a retired
Government employee to live with dignity in
his winter of life, therefore, such benefit should
not be denied to an employee unreasonably on
mere technicalities. (Para 16 to 20)

In the instant case is that the petitioners have
been
engaged
as
Seasonal
Collection
Amin
between the year 1976 to 1990 and their services
have been regularized between the years 2011 to
2016 and they have been extended all the benefits
like the revision of pay with the approval of the
competent authority as paid to the regular
Collection Amin. The duties which have been
discharged by the petitioners while working as
Seasonal Collection Amin was similar to the duties
discharged by regular Collection Amin, and on
continuance and satisfactory services rendered by
them as Seasonal Collection Amin, they have been
regularized in service as per Rules. Thus, it is
evident that though the nomenclature and
nature of appointment to the petitioners
were Seasonal Collection Amin, but as a
matter
of
fact,
they
meet
all
the
requirements to be treated as temporary
employees. (Para 21)

The services rendered by the petitioners as Seasonal
Collection Amin cannot be ignored for extending the
benefits of pension and other retiral benefits to them
on the pretext that their appointment is to be treated
from the date of regularization and not from the date
of their engagement as work charged employee.
(Para 24)
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India: Article 14 - Petitioners have
worked for decades as Seasonal Collection Amin
discharging the same duty which has been discharged
by the regular Collection Amin and have been
extended same benefits which have been extended to
the regular Collection Amin, therefore, denying them
the benefit of pension and other benefits which have
been extended to Regular Collection Amin would not
only be arbitrary but against the concept of the right
to equality as enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution
of India. (Para 23)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Board of Revenue through its Chairman: The
District Magistrate & Up-Zila Adhikari Vs Prasidh
Narain Upadhyay, 2006 (5) AWC 5194 (DB) (Para 11)

2. Gulaichi Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2019 12 ADJ
547 (Para 11)

3. St.of U.P. & ors. Vs Ram Sunder Ram, 2016 34 LCD
2804 (DB) (Para 11)

4. Babu Lal Tewari Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2019 (3) ADJ
501 (Para 11)

5. V. Sukumaran Vs St.of Kerala & anr., 2020 4 SCC
509 (Para 11)

6. A.P. Srivastava Vs U.O.I. & ors., (1995) 3 UPLBEC
1842 (Suplement) (Para 21)

7. Ram Pratap Vs St. of U.P., 2006 (4) ADJ 709 (Para
21)

8. Babu Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2006 (8) ADJ 371 (Para
21)

9. Kedar Ra-1 Vs St. of U.P., 2008 ILR (All) 659, (Para
21)

10. Ram Sajiwan Maurya Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ
Petition No. 3031 (S/S) of 2044, decided on 12
August 2009 (Para 21)

11. Kanti Devi Vs St. of U.P., 2009 (10) ADJ 18 (Para
21)

12. Kishan Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2009 (9) ADJ 516
(Para 21)
13. Awadh Bihari Shukla Vs St. of U.P., 2015 (6) ADJ
186 (Para 21)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned
counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Monika Arya,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioners, through the present writ
petition, have prayed for a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to grant pension
and other retiral benefits to them .

3. The petitioners, who are five in
numbers, were engaged as Seasonal Collection
Amin on different dates in Tehsil Sadar, District
Maharajganj. Their services were regularized
and all of them have retired. The details of all
the petitioners in respect of their date of
engagement, regularization, and retirement are
given in the table below:-

Sl
No.
Name of
Petitione
rs
Date
of
Engag
ement
Date
of
Regu
lariza
tion
Date
of
Retirement
1.
Kaushal
Kishore
Chaubey
05.07.
1976
31.0
5.20
12
31.05.2018
2.
Nar
Singh
20.03.
1984
23.1
2.20
11
31.01.2018
3.
Ravindr
a Kumar
Dubey
29.08.
1989
25.1
0.20
16
20.09.2019
4.
Madan
Prasad
03.02.
1990
24.1
2.20
11
31.01.2020
5.
Ramesh
Chandra
Pandey
10.03.
1987
09.0
9.20
12

31.07.2016
11 All. Kaushal Kishore Chaubey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
987

4. It is stated in the writ petition that the
petitioners had worked as Seasonal Collection
Amin continuously except with some artificial
break before they were regularized on the post
of Collection Amin. The petitioners were
granted the pay scale applicable to the regular
Collection Amin and their salary was revised
from time to time with the approval of the
competent authority, therefore, the working of
the petitioners cannot be treated as Seasonal
Collection Amin rather they were temporary
employees, hence, after retirement, they are
entitled to retiral benefits including the pension
because of Regulation 368 & 370 of the U.P.
Civil Service Regulations.

5. As the petitioners are entitled to all the
retiral benefits including pension, accordingly,
they submitted a representation to respondent
no.2-District Magistrate/Collector, Maharajganj
to grant them all the retiral benefits including
pension, but the competent authority informed
them that since they had discharged their duties
as Seasonal Collection Amin before their
regularization, therefore, they are not entitled to
the pension and other retiral benefits.

6. Further, the case of the petitioners is that
the petitioners have served as Collection Amin
for more than three decades, therefore, the
respondent authority has acted arbitrarily and
malafidely in not extending the benefit of
pension to the petitioners.

7. In the counter affidavit of the respondent
nos. 2 and 3, the assertions made by the
petitioners in respect of their engagement as
Seasonal
Collection
Amin
and
their
regularization have not been denied. However,
in paragraphs nos.10 & 11 of the counter
affidavit, it is averred that the petitioners are not
entitled to the pensionary benefits in view of
Government
Orders
dated
15.09.2011,
19.05.2016, and 15.05.2009 and further in view
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Retirement
Benefits
(Amendment) Rules, 2005 which clarified that
the persons appointed on or after 01.04.2005 are
not covered by Pension Rules. It is further stated
that whatever post-retiral benefits were due to
the petitioners, they have been paid.

8. Strangely, a separate counter affidavit
has been filed by respondent no.1 stating therein
that the services rendered by the petitioners as
Seasonal Collection Amin before regularization
is liable to be counted for the qualifying period
of 10 years service for the purpose of giving
pension and other retiral benefits. Paragraph
no.2 of the counter affidavit of respondent no.1
is being extracted here-in-below:-

" 2. That in the present petition, the
petitioners continued to work on the post of
seasonal collection Amin and their scales were
also being revised and subsequently, their
services were regularized and they have retired
from their posts therefore, the services rendered
by the petitioners as seasonal collection Amin
before their regularization is liable to be
counted for the qualifying period of 10 years for
the purpose of giving pension and other retiral
benefits."

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that the action of the respondent
authorities in not extending the benefit of
pension and other retiral dues to the petitioners
on the pretext that the claim of the petitioners
relating to their post retiral benefits are governed
by the various Government Orders, referred
above, and Rule 2005, hence, the petitioners are
not entitled to the benefits of U.P. Retirement
Benefits Rules, 1961 is incorrect and not
sustainable in law. He further contends that
since, undisputedly the petitioners have been
engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin between
the year 1976 to 1990 and they have been
extended all the benefits, like the revision of pay
scale, etc. as applicable to regular Collection
Amin, therefore, the nature of appointment of
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioners is temporary and as the
Fundamental
Rules
56
applies
to
them,
therefore, it is wrong to contend that they are not
entitled to pension and other retiral benefits
having been appointed after 01.04.2005.

10. It is submitted that the petitioners have
been appointed on various dates between the
year 1976 to 1990 and because of their
continuance in service, their services have been
regularized, therefore, it is wrong to assume that
the date of appointment of the petitioners is the
date of their regularization and not the date on
which they have been engaged as Seasonal
Collection Amin.

11. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance
upon the judgments of this Court in the case of
Board of Revenue through its Chairman: The
District Magistrate and Up--Zila Adhikari
Vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, reported in
2006 (5) AWC 5194 (DB); Gulaichi Devi Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2019 12
ADJ 547; State of U.P. and others Vs. Ram
Sunder Ram, reported in 2016 34 LCD 2804
(DB); Babu Lal Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and
others reported in 2019 (3) ADJ 501 and also
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of V.
Sukumaran Vs. state of Kerala and another,
reported in 2020 4 Supreme(SC) 509.

12. Per-contra, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel would contend that the
petitioners are not entitled to the pensionary
benefits and other retiral benefits in view of the
Government
Orders
dated
15.09.2011,
19.05.2016, and 15.05.2009 and Uttar Pradesh
Retirement Benefits (Sansodhan) Rules, 2005.

13. She further contends that the date of
regularization of the petitioners shall be taken to be
the date of their substantive appointment, and since
all the petitioners have been regularized after
01.04.2005, therefore, they are not entitled to the
pension and other retiral benefits, and whatever
benefit was due to them, that had already been paid
to them, as such the writ petition lacks merit and
deserves to be dismissed.

14. I have considered the rival submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

15. Before dealing with the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, it would be
appropriate to have a glance at various
pronouncements of Apex Court as well as of this
Court dealing with the questions as to whether the
services rendered as daily wager or work charged
employee, etc. are to be counted for pension or not.

16. In the case of V. Sukumaran (supra), the
Apex Court has emphasized that the pensionary
provisions must be given a liberal construction
being a social welfare measure; it does not mean
that something can be given contrary to rules, but
the purpose of grant of such pension must be kept
in mind while interpreting pensionary provision. It
emphasized that the grant of pension is to facilitate
a retired Government employee to live with
dignity in his winter of life, therefore, such benefit
should not be denied to an employee unreasonably
on mere technicalities.

17. In the case of State of U.P. and others(
supra), the Division Bench of this Court
repelled the contention of the counsel for the
State of U.P. that the respondent in the appeal is
not entitled to the pension and other pensionary
benefits as he did not hold any regular post and
worked on the non-pensionable establishment on
the availability of work and fund. The relevant
paragraph nos. 10, 12, 13 & 14 of the judgment
are being reproduced here-in-below:-

"10. Dr. Hari Shankar Ashopa v. State of
U.P. and Ors. 1989 ACJ 337 after referring to
the Fundamental Rule 56 and various provisions
contained in Civil Service Regulations, this
11 All. Kaushal Kishore Chaubey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
989
Court observed that Clause (e) of Rule 56
unequivocally
recognizes,
declares
and
guarantees
retiring
pension
to
every
Government servant who retires on attaining the
age of superannuation, or who is prematurely
retired or who retires voluntarily. To be precise,
every Government servant (whether permanent
or temporary) who retires under Clause (a) or
Clause (b) or who is required to retire, or who is
allowed to retire under Clause (c) of Rule 56,
becomes entitled for a retiring pension, of
course, the first and third conditions stipulated
in Article 361 of the Regulations are satisfied.

12. We have occasion to peruse the entire
record in question and find that the petitionerrespondent was initially appointed on the post of
Temporary
Seasonal
Collection
Peon
in
agriculture department on 27.5.1970 and
subsequently on 31.9.1975 his services were
retrenched. Taking shelter of the Government
order dated 6.3.1977, which provided that the
retrenched employee was to be absorbed in
revenue department on the basis of seniority, the
petitioner was again appointed on the post of
Temporary Collection Peon on 4.2.1981 on
substantive post and he worked continuously
without any break upto 1.1.1990. Thereafter the
petitioner's services were regularized on the
post of Collection Peon w.e.f. 1.1.1990. The
petitioner has retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.6.2004. The petitioner
filed the writ petition in question in the year
2007 for counting his temporary services on the
post of Temporary Collection Peon from
4.2.1981 to 1.1.1990. Learned Single Judge has
proceeded to dispose of the writ petition in
question on 16.3.2009 with the following
observations:-

"Thus in view of the mater, the
contention of the respondents that the service
rendered by the petitioner as Temporary
Collection Peon is not liable to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of computing
petitioner's pension is clearly misconceived and
is rejected. Respondents are liable to consider
the temporary continuous service rendered by
the petitioner on the post of Collection Peon
from 4.2.1981 to 1.1.1990 for the purpose of
computing his pension.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ
petition is finally disposed of with a direction to
the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive
representation for revision of his pension on the
grounds raised in the present writ petition
alongwith the certified copy of this order before
the respondent no.2 within two weeks from today
and in case any such representation is preferred
by the petitioner as directed above, the same
shall be considered and decided by the
respondent no.2 strictly in accordance with law
by a reasoned and speaking order 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 as expeditiously
as possible preferably within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of the
petitioner's representation."

13. The service record of the petitioner,
which is appended alongwith supplementary
affidavit filed by the State on 22.12.2015, clearly
reveals that no doubt the petitioner was initially
inducted in the agriculture department as
Seasonal Collection Peon on temporary basis in
the year 1976 but he had been accorded regular
pay scale and the increment was also given by
the department concerned on 1.2.1986 and
thereafter he was paid regular pay scales. The
engagement of the petitioner was made against
substantive post and this is admitted case that he
has been accorded pay scales and regular
increments and at no point of time the said
document had been disputed by the appellants.

14. In the case of Dukh Haran Singh
(supra) the Court has taken a view that the
petitioner does not qualify for grant of pension
as in terms of Regulations 361 and 370 of the
Regulations, the services rendered prior to that
are
neither
substantive,
permanent
nor
temporary. The same would not be applicable in
the present case as the relief, which has been
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accorded by learned Single Judge is in
consonance with the Regulations wherein the
petitioner had been accorded pay scale and
other benefits against substantive post and as
such, his claim cannot be negated on the ground
that his nomenclature was as seasonal. The
same would not help to the appellantsrespondents."

18. In the case of the Board of Revenue
(supra), the Division Bench repelled an
argument that the respondent was a Seasonal
Collection Amin, therefore, he was not entitled
to pensionary benefits. The Court after noting
the ingredients of 'qualifying service' defined in
Section 1 Chapter XVI of Article 361 of the
Civil
Service
Regulations
held
that
the
Conditions (B) of Article 361 of Civil Service
Regulations is inconsistent with Fundamental
Rule 56, and thus, is inoperative. The Court also
observed that the continuous working of the
respondent for more than 37 years cannot be
ignored on the basis of a vague and
unsubstantiated plea. Relevant paragraph nos.12,
13 & 16 of the judgment are being extracted
here-in-below:-

"12. The term "qualifying service" is
'defined in Section 1 Chapter XVI of Article 361
of the Civil Service Regulations, which provides
that the service of an officer does not qualify for
pension unless it conforms to the following three
conditions:-

(A) The service must be under
Government.

(B)
The
employment
must
be
substantive and permanent.

(C) The service must be paid by
government.

13. In the present case, so far as the
condition Nos.A and C are concerned, they are
satisfied and the dispute is only with respect to
condition No. B, i.e., lack of permanent
character of service. However, in our view, the
aforesaid provisions stand obliterated after the
amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 by U.P.
Act, No.24 of 1975 which allows retirement of a
temporary employees also and provides in
Clause (e) that a retiring pension is payable and
other retiral benefits, if any, shall be available
to every Government servant who retires or is
required or allowed to retire under this Rule.
Since the aforesaid amendment Rule 56 was
made by an Act of Legislature, the provisions
contained
otherwise
under
Civil
Service
Regulations, which are pre-constitutional, would
have to give way to the provisions of
Fundamental Rule 56. In other words the
provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 shall prevail
over the Civil Service Regulations, if they are
inconsistent. Conditions (supra) of Article 361
of Civil Service Regulations are clearly
inconsistent with Fundamental Rule 56 and thus
is inoperative.

16. Learned counsel for the appellants
further submitted that since in the service book,
the petitioner-respondent was also shown as
Seasonal Collection Peon and, therefore, the
mention of word "temporary" as his initial
appointment will not make any difference. We do
not agree. The contention of the appellants that
the petitioner-respondent was a Seasonal
Collection Peon and his engagement and post
was extended from time to time by the
Commissioner is totally unsubstantiated, as
nothing has been brought on record to
substantiate this plea. Even otherwise the
continuous working of the petitioner-respondent
for more than 37 years cannot be ignored on the
basis of a vague and unsubstantiated plea
sought to be raised by the appellants. The
statutory right of the petitioner-respondent
following by rendering service for such a long
service, cannot be brushed aside lightly."

19. In the case of Babu Lal Tewari (supra),
the Court has considered the definition of
''qualifying service' defined in Section 1 Chapter
XVI of Article 361 of the Civil Service
Regulations, and held that Condition (B) of
11 All. Kaushal Kishore Chaubey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
991
Article 361 of Civil Service Regulations being
inconsistent with Fundamental Rule 56 is
inoperative. The Court repelled the argument of
the respondent-State that as the petitioner has
not completed 10 years service as regular
employee since prior to that he was appointed as
temporary employee as Peon, therefore, he is not
entitled to pensionary benefits. Relevant extract
of paragraph no. 11 is being reproduced here-inbelow:

"11.
Even
otherwise,
I
find
that
Fundamental Rule, 56, as operative in Uttar
Pradesh made by provincial legislation, clearly
provides that any person who retires under
Fundamental Rule 56 would be entitled for
retiring pension. Fundamental Rule 56 since it is
provincial enactment would prevail over Civil
Service
Regulations,
which
are
preconstitutional
provision.
This
aspect
was
considered by a Division Bench of this Court in
Prasidh Narain Upadhyay (supra), and the
Court held:

"12. The term "qualifying service" is
defined in Section 1 Chapter 16 of Article 361 of
the Civil Service Regulations which provides
that the service of an officer does not qualify for
pension unless it conforms to the following three
conditions:

(A)The service must be under Government.

(B)The employment must be substantive
and permanent.

(C)The
service
must
be
paid
by
Government.

13. In the present case, so far as the
condition Nos. A and C are concerned, they are
satisfied and the dispute is only with respect to
condition No. B, i.e. lack of permanent character
of service. However, in our view, the aforesaid
provisions
stand
obliterated
after
the
amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 by U.P. Act
No. 24 of 1975 which allows retirement of a
temporary employee also and provides in Clause
(e) that a retiring pension is payable and other
retiral benefits, if any, shall be available to
every Government servant who retires or is
required or allowed to retire under this Rule.
Since the aforesaid amendment Rule 56 was
Service
Regulations,
which
are
preconstitutional would have to give way to the
provisions of Fundamental Rule 56. In other
words, the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56
shall prevail over the Civil Service Regulations,
if they are inconsistent. Condition B (supra) of
Article 361 of Civil Service Regulations are
clearly inconsistent with Fundamental Rule 56
and thus, is inoperative.

14. A similar controversy came up for
consideration earlier before this court in the
case of Dr. Hari Shanker Ashopa Vs State of
U.P. and others, 1989 ACJ 337. After referring
to the Fundamental Rule 56 and various
provisions
contained
in
Civil
Service
Regulations, this Court observed as under:

"Clause (e) of Rule 56 unequivocally
recognizes, declares and guarantees retiring
pension to every Government servant who
retires on attaining the age of superannuation,
or who is prematurely retired or who retires
voluntarily. To be precise, every Government
servant (whether permanent or temporary) who
retires under Clause (a) of Clause (b), or who is
required to retire, or who is allowed to retire
under Clause (C) of Rule 56, becomes entitled
for a retiring pension, of course, the first and
third conditions stipulated in Article 361 of the
Regulations are satisfied."

20. In the case of Gulaichi Devi (supra),
after analyzing the various pronouncements, the
Court has held that a temporary employee
appointed on the various establishment of the
Government is entitled to the pension under
Fundamental Rules, 1956.

21. Undisputedly, the fact in the instant case
is that the petitioners have been engaged as
Seasonal Collection Amin between the year 1976
to 1990 and their services have been regularized
between the years 2011 to 2016 and they have
992 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been extended all the benefits like the revision of
pay with the approval of the competent authority
as paid to the regular Collection Amin. The duties
which have been discharged by the petitioners
while working as Seasonal Collection Amin was
similar to the duties discharged by regular
Collection Amin, and on continuance and
satisfactory services rendered by them as Seasonal
Collection Amin , they have been regularized in
service as per Rules. Thus, from the facts narrated
above, it is evident that though the nomenclature
and nature of appointment to the petitioners were
Seasonal Collection Amin , but as a matter of fact,
they meet all the requirements to be treated as
temporary employees as held by the Apex Court in
the case of A.P. Srivastava Vs. Union of India
and
others,
(1995)
3
UPLBEC
1842
(Supplement), [ See also Ram Pratap Vs. State of
U.P., 2006 (4) ADJ 709, Babu Singh Vs. State of
U.P., 2006 (8) ADJ 371, Kedar Ra-I Vs. State of
U.P., 2008 ILR (All) 659, Ram Sajiwan Maurya
Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition
No.3031 (S/S) of 2004 (decided on 12 August
2009), Kanti Devi Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (10)
AJD 18, Kishan Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (9)
ADJ 516 & Awadh Bihari Shukla Vs. State of
U.P., 2015 (6) ADJ 186 ].

22. From the judgments referred above, it is
clear that the Courts has consistently held that the
services rendered by an employee either as work
charged employee or Seasonal Collection Amin
are to be counted for granting the pensionary
benefit to them, and the nomenclature of their
appointment, be a daily wager, temporary or
whatever, is not material to consider their claim for
grant of pensionary and retiral benefits.

23. Further, it is also pertinent to mention
that the petitioners have worked for decades as
Seasonal Collection Amin discharging the same
duty which has been discharged by the regular
Collection Amin and have been extended same
benefits which have been extended to the regular
Collection Amin, therefore, in such factual
scenario denying the petitioners the benefit of
pension and other benefits which have been
extended to Regular Collection Amin would not
only be arbitrary but against the concept of the
right to equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.

24. In view of the above discussion and
given the law elucidated by the Apex Court as well
as by this Court in various pronouncements
referred above, the services rendered by the
petitioners as Seasonal Collection Amin cannot be
ignored for extending the benefits of pension and
other retiral benefits to them on the pretext that
their appointment is to be treated from the date of
regularization and not from the date of their
engagement as work charged employee.

25. Consequently,the writ petition is
allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the
respondent to compute pensionary benefit
payable to the petitioners after taking into account
their entire service including the service rendered
by them as Seasonal Collection Amin. The
amount payable to the petitioners shall be
computed within three months from the date of
presentation of a copy of this order downloaded
from the official website of Allahabad High
Court, and the same shall be paid within the next
two months. The respondents shall also continue
to pay current pensionary benefits as and when
the same fell due.
----------
(2021)12ILR A992
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 5064 of 2021

Sachin Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents