# Revenue and others v. Prasidh Narain

- **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 783
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-09-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.71098 of 2006
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revenue-and-others-v-prasidh-narain-41458
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Q.H. Siddiqui
S.C.

Civil Services Regulation-424- Qualifying
period for pension-petitioner worked
from
1963
to
1997
as
Seasonal
Collection peon-substantive appointment
given on 31.1.96. retired on 28.02.05working of petitioner on substantive
basis less than 10 years-disentitled the
petitioner from pensionary benefits-case
relied
by
petitioner
quite
distinguishable-working on temporary
capacity
can
not
be
equated
with
seasonal working.

Held: Para-7

The
provisions
of
Civil
Service
Regulations have been held sub-served
to the statutory provision contained in
Fundamental
Rule
56
which
was
substituted by Legislative Act, i.e., U.P.
Act No. 24 of 1975 only to the extent the
regulations
inconsistent
with
the
legislative
provision
would
be
inoperative. This Court laid down that
the
provisions
of
Civil
Service
Regulations i.e., in respect to Article
361(1) (b), the word "substantive" and
"permanent" is redundant since after the
amendment made in Fundamental Rule
56 even a temporary Government was
entitled for pension and, therefore,
temporary
service
was
held
to
be
qualifying service for pension but rest of
the provision continued to be valid and
operative. A seasonal employee, cannot
be equated with a temporary employee.
This Court has not been shown any
provision where under even a seasonal
employee is entitled for pension.
Case law discussed:
2006(1) ESC 611, 1983 (1) SCC 305, 1989 ACJ

## Text

3 All] Kishan Singh V. State of U.P. and others

783
7. Having considered the matter on
facts as well as in law, this Court finds
that
the
impugned
orders
dated
20.12.1988
and
26.08.1992
are
unsustainable and are accordingly set
aside. The arms license of the petitioner
shall stand restored.

8. The writ petition stands allowed
in the light of the aforesaid observations
made herein above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.71098 of 2006

Kishan Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.P. Pal
Sri S.C. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Q.H. Siddiqui
S.C.

Civil Services Regulation-424- Qualifying
period for pension-petitioner worked
from
1963
to
1997
as
Seasonal
Collection peon-substantive appointment
given on 31.1.96. retired on 28.02.05working of petitioner on substantive
basis less than 10 years-disentitled the
petitioner from pensionary benefits-case
relied
by
petitioner
quite
distinguishable-working on temporary
capacity
can
not
be
equated
with
seasonal working.

Held: Para-7

The
provisions
of
Civil
Service
Regulations have been held sub-served
to the statutory provision contained in
Fundamental
Rule
56
which
was
substituted by Legislative Act, i.e., U.P.
Act No. 24 of 1975 only to the extent the
regulations
inconsistent
with
the
legislative
provision
would
be
inoperative. This Court laid down that
the
provisions
of
Civil
Service
Regulations i.e., in respect to Article
361(1) (b), the word "substantive" and
"permanent" is redundant since after the
amendment made in Fundamental Rule
56 even a temporary Government was
entitled for pension and, therefore,
temporary
service
was
held
to
be
qualifying service for pension but rest of
the provision continued to be valid and
operative. A seasonal employee, cannot
be equated with a temporary employee.
This Court has not been shown any
provision where under even a seasonal
employee is entitled for pension.
Case law discussed:
2006(1) ESC 611, 1983 (1) SCC 305, 1989 ACJ
337.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri G.P. Pal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner was engaged as Seasonal
Collection
Peon
on
13.06.1963,
regularised
as
Collection
Peon
on
31.01.1996, confirmed on the post of
Collection Peon on 04.09.2000, attained
the age of superannuation on 28.02.2005
and
retired
from
the
said
post.
Considering his qualifying service of less
than 10 years, the respondents have not
paid any pension to him hence this writ
petition. Reliance is placed by learned
counsel for the petitioner on a Division
Bench decision of this Court in Board of
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

Revenue and others Vs. Prasidh Narain
Upadhyay, 2006(1) ESC 611.

3. However, having heard learned
counsel for the petitioner and perusing the
record, I do not find any merit in the writ
petition.

4. It is no doubt true that pension
being deferred wages, as held by Hon'ble
Apex Court in D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of
India 1983 (1) SCC 305, is not a bounty
but right but simultaneously it is also true
that pension when payable is governed by
the statuary rules or the statute and in case
the rules do not provide for the same it
cannot be claimed at all. The petitioner
from 1963 to January, 1996 remained a
Seasonal Collection Peon and only on
31.01.1996 he was appointed against a
substantive vacancy, kept on one year
probation and was appointed in pay scale
of Rs. 750-940 as Collection Peon. After
completion of period of probation vide
order dated 04.09.2000 he was also
confirmed on the post of Collection Peon.
He retired on 28.02.2005 after attaining
the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years as
provided under Fundamental Rule 56.

5. The submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner that in Prasidh
Narain
Upadhyay
(supra)
also
the
incumbent was a Seasonal Collection
Peon and was held to be entitled for
pensionary benefits taking into account
his
service
rendered
as
Seasonal
Collection Peon as qualifying service is
not correct inasmuch as in the said case
the Board of Revenue which had filed an
intra Court appeal before the Division
Bench has taken a plea that the employee
was not substantively appointed and
confirmed on the post of Collection Peon
but had throughout worked as Seasonal
Collection Peon which fact was not found
correct either by Hon'ble Single Judge or
by the Division Bench as is evident from
para 5 of the judgement which is
reproduced as under:

"5. From the record it is not disputed
that the respondent has worked as
Collection Peon since 10.2.1962 till 31st
July, 1999 when he attained the age of
superannuation on attaining 60 years of
age and was retired from service (except
of notional break of three months in the
year
1989).
Thus,
apparently
the
respondent worked in the service of the
appellants for almost more than 37 years.
The appellants although submitted that
the respondent was employed as Seasonal
Collection Peon but the Hon'ble Single
Judge on the basis of the perusal of the
service book of the respondent has found
that the employment of the petitionerrespondent
has
been
mentioned
as
Collection
Peon
(Temporary)
but
subsequently in the service book it has
been mentioned that he is working as
Seasonal Collection Peon. The entry of
initial appointment of the petitionerrespondent as temporary Collection Peon
is not disputed. That being so, it is not
possible to assume as to how the
respondent has been shown as Seasonal
Collection Peon in the subsequent part of
the service book. The appellants could not
explain this aspect even in the present
appeal, although in para-7 of the affidavit
they have admitted that in the 2nd column
of the service book, a formal entry
"temporary" of the service of the
respondent is mentioned. It is also
mentioned that the notice of retirement
dated 5.5.1999 filed as Annexure-2 to the
paper book of the appeal shows that the
designation of the petitioner-respondent
has been shown as Sangrah Chaprasi
3 All] Kishan Singh V. State of U.P. and others

785
(Collection Peon) and not as a Seasonal
Collection Peon, i.e. Samyik Sangrah
Chaprasi. The order passed on the
petitioner-respondent's representation by
the appellants also shows that in the year
1996 the appellants recommended the
petitioner-respondent for regularization
to the Board of Revenue but the matter
remained pending for years together and
no order could be issued due to inaction
on the part of the Board of Revenue and
in the meantime the respondents attained
the age of superannuation on 31.7.1999."

6. After having recorded a finding
that he was a temporary employee since
very beginning and not a seasonal one, the
only question which was considered in
that case whether mere non-confirmation
of the employee would be a sufficient
reason to deny him pension when he has
worked for about 37 years as temporary
employee. This question was considered
by the court in the light of the amendment
made in Fundamental Rule 56 read with
Article 424 Chapter 18 of Civil Service
Regulations, and, as interpreted by a
Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Hari
Shankar Asopa Vs. 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 Court did not
accept the contention that even a Seasonal
Collection Peon would be entitled for
pensionary benefits. In fact in Prasidh
Narain Upadhyay (supra), objection about
the status of the employee being seasonal
was negatived, as is also find support
from para 16 of the said judgment where
the Division Bench took the following
view:

"16.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants further submitted that since in
the
service
book,
the
petitionerrespondent 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 petitionerrespondent flowing by rendering service
for such a long service, cannot be brushed
aside lightly."

7. The provisions of Civil Service
Regulations have been held sub-served to
the statutory provision contained in
Fundamental
Rule
56
which
was
substituted by Legislative Act, i.e., U.P.
Act No. 24 of 1975 only to the extent the
regulations
inconsistent
with
the
legislative
provision
would
be
inoperative. This Court laid down that the
provisions of Civil Service Regulations
i.e., in respect to Article 361(1) (b), the
word "substantive" and "permanent" is
redundant since after the amendment
made in Fundamental Rule 56 even a
temporary Government was entitled for
pension and, therefore, temporary service
was held to be qualifying service for
pension
but
rest
of
the
provision
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

continued to be valid and operative. A
seasonal employee, cannot be equated
with a temporary employee. This Court
has not been shown any provision where
under even a seasonal employee is
entitled for pension.

8. Consistent with the provisions of
Civil
Service
Regulations
and
Fundamental Rule 56 several Government
Orders were issued from time to time and
by the subsequent Government Order
dated 01.04.1989 it was clarified that a
temporary servant who has completed 10
years of service would also be entitled for
pension. No provision has been shown to
this Court which provide otherwise.

9. Admittedly, since the petitioner
has not rendered qualifying service to the
extent provided in the Rules entitling him
for pension after his status as Seasonal
Collection Peon ceased, I do not find any
reason to interfere with the order
impugned in this writ petition. The writ
petition lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38806 of 2009

Smt. Anita Devi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri Nipun Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anurag Sharma
Sri Satish Chaturvedi (AAG)
Sri Neeraj Upadhyay (Addl. C.S.C.)

U.P.
Kshetra
Panchayat
and
Zila
Panchayat (Removal & Pramukh and UpPramuks, Chairman and Vice-Chairman)
Enquiry Rules-1997-Rule 5, 6 a ceasure
of financial and administrative power of
Pramukh-Principal
secretary
by
exercising power under Rule 3 appointed
the District Magistrate as enquiry officerwho on its time based upon enquiry
conducted
by
A.D.M.-forwarded
the
earlier report to the Govt.-on that basis
order passed-challenge made on ground
District Magistrate instead of himself
conducting
enquiry
committed
great
illegality-petitioner not making payment
of development work labor employed
under scheme also not paid-quality of
brick also very poor-as her husband was
supplier-No prejudice shown in the
enquiry-requires no interference.

Held: Para 18

We have gone through the enquiry
report dated 25.7.2008 and the reasons
given by the State Government for
initiating the regular enquiry and to
suspend the financial and administrative
powers of the petitioner. We do not find
that
the
State
Government
has
committed any error on facts or in law in
exercise of its discretion. The petitioner
was
not
making
payments
for
development
works
even
after
the
supply
of
material.
The
labourers
employed in the schemes were not paid
for almost three months. It was prima
facie found that the petitioner was
exercising
the
pressure
for
making
estimates of fresh projects and for
making payments of the bricks, the
quality of which was doubtful, supplied
by her husband's brick field and that her
husband had received the payments by
the cheques signed by her on behalf of
the firm. The impugned order does not
require any interference of the Court.
Case law discussed: