# Revenue & ors v. Prasidh Narain

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 885
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-07-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55366 of 2009
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revenue-ors-v-prasidh-narain-41993
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Pension-Petitioner working as Seasonal
Collection Peon-substantively appointed
on
29.11.96-after
retirement
on
31.12.2007-claimed
his
initial
appointment of seasonal be also counted
for Qualifying period of pension-held-can
not be accepted.

Held: Para 4

In the circumstances, the claim of
petitioner
to
count
his
service
as
Seasonal
Collection
Peon
towards
pension cannot be accepted since it is
de-hors the rules.
Case law discussed:
2006(1) ESC 611; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
14286 of 2008 (Smt. Ramwati Vs. State of
U.P. and others) decided on 26.11.2010; 2006
(8) ADJ 371; 1989 ACJ 337

## Text

2 All] Deepa Ram V. State of U.P. and others
885
view of provisions of Section 14 of the
Arms Act by a speaking and reasoned
order
as
expeditiously
as
possible
preferably within a period of two months
from the date of the production of the
certified copy of this order before him.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55366 of 2009

Deepa Ram

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri O. P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Pension-Petitioner working as Seasonal
Collection Peon-substantively appointed
on
29.11.96-after
retirement
on
31.12.2007-claimed
his
initial
appointment of seasonal be also counted
for Qualifying period of pension-held-can
not be accepted.

Held: Para 4

In the circumstances, the claim of
petitioner
to
count
his
service
as
Seasonal
Collection
Peon
towards
pension cannot be accepted since it is
de-hors the rules.
Case law discussed:
2006(1) ESC 611; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
14286 of 2008 (Smt. Ramwati Vs. State of
U.P. and others) decided on 26.11.2010; 2006
(8) ADJ 371; 1989 ACJ 337

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

1. List revised. None appeared. I
have perused the record.

2. Petitioner was working as
Seasonal Collection Peon. He was made
substantive on 29.11.1996 and retired on
attaining the age of superannuation on
31.12.2007. The case of the petitioner is
that service rendered by him as seasonal
Collection Amin since 20.11.1981 should
be treated as qualifying service for the
purpose of pension and other retiral
benefits. Reliance is placed on Division
Bench judgment of this Court in Board of
Revenue & ors Vs. Prasidh Narain
Upadhyay 2006 (1) ESC 611.

3. In my view, the submission is
thoroughly misconceived. The service
rendered as Seasonal Collection Peon
does not qualify for pension. No provision
has been shown in this regard. In Prasidh
Narain Upadhyay (supra), the Division
Bench
has
recorded
a
clear
and
categorical
finding
rejecting
the
contention of State Government that
incumbent was working as Seasonal
Collection Peon and on the contrary this
Court held that he was actually appointed
as Collection Peon on temporary basis. A
temporary
appointment
followed
by
substantive
(permanent)
appointment
qualify for pension. That was not a case
where
incumbent
was
working
as
Seasonal Collection Peon. This was the
case set up by State Government but not
accepted by this Court. This distinction
has been pointed out by this Court later on
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14286
of 2008 (Smt. Ramwati Vs. State of U.P.
and others) decided on 26.11.2010,
wherein this Court said as under:
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

"Learned counsel for the petitioner
while assailing the impugned order
denying pension on the ground of noncompletion of 10 years service placed
reliance on a decision of this Court in
Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2006(8) ADJ 371.

However that was a case where the
incumbent was appointed on temporary
basis and was regularised on 02.05.1995.
The department intended to ignore the
temporary
service
rendered
by the
employee concerned before period of
regularisation
for
the
purpose
of
qualifying service and this Court relying
on the Division Bench decision of this
Court in Dr. Hari Shankar Ashopa Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 1989 ACJ 337
and Board of Revenue and others Vs.
Prasidh Narain UPadhyay, 2006(1)ESC
611 held that Fundamental Rule 56 as
amended in 1975 provides retiring
pension to a temporary employee also.
Meaning thereby the services rendered as
a temporary employee will qualify for
pension. The aforesaid judgment is not
applicable to a case where the incumbent
has worked not as a temporary employee
but as a seasonal employee, since the
service rendered by a seasonal employee
is intermitent and cannot be equated with
a temporary employee."

4. In the circumstances, the claim of
petitioner to count his service as Seasonal
Collection Peon towards pension cannot
be accepted since it is de-hors the rules.

5. The writ petition lacks merit.
Dismissed.
---------