Allahabad High Court directs Revenue department to give pension benefits to seasonal collection workers
The Allahabad High Court has directed to give pension benefits to the Seasonal Collection agents working in the Revenue Department by adding the services done as daily wage earners to the regular services.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajiv Joshi passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Shri Prakash Tiwari And 2 Others.
The writ petition is filed by the petitioners for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to count their entire services including the services rendered as Seasonal Collection Amin for the purposes of pensionary benefits.
The petitioner nos 1(Shri Prakash Tiwari) was appointed on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin on 01.03.1988 his services were regularized on 25.10.2016 and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 30.09.2021.
The petitioner no 2 was appointed on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin on 20.04.1988 his services were regularized on 25.10.2016 and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 31.12.2018.
The petitioner no 3 was appointed on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin on 01.02.1990 his services were regularized on 25.10.2018 and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 28.02.2017.
Similar controversy has already been adjudicated by the Court by means of the order dated 17.2.2023 passed in a bunch of the petitions, wherein issue relating to interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Act of 2021 for counting qualifying service for the purpose of pension with regard to adhoc employees has been dealt with in detail by the Court.
The Court order dated 17.2.2023 reads as under:
‘….21. Law regarding counting of the period of services rendered earlier as Seasonal Collection Peon/Collection Amin for calculation of post-retiral benefits is long settled by a large number of judgments. Suffice would be to refer to the judgment of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Board of Revenue through its Chairman: The District Magistrate and UP-Zila Adhikari vs Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006 (5) AWC 5194 (DB). The said judgment is followed till date. Furthermore, Fundamental Rule 56 as it stood amended by the U.P Amendment Act No 24 of 1975 allows for retirement of a temporary employee and in clause (e) of the Fundamental Rule 56 it is provided that retiral benefits shall be made available to every employee who retires under this Rule. Even after the coming into force of the Act of 2021, since, their appointment is against a post, hence, they are squarely covered even by the original Section 2 of the Act of 2021. Further, in view of interpretation as given above to Section 2 of the Act of 2021 where it is held that the work on temporary or permanent post needs to be read as work taken from a person on a position, be it temporary or permanent, otherwise, it again would be hit by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh (supra), thus, there can be no dispute that they are entitled for pension by counting in services rendered by them as non-regular employees.
- In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, all the orders impugned in the writ petitions are passed either on the ground that they are covered by the Ordinance/Act of 2021 or they were not party in case of Prem Singh (supra) or without considering the judgment of Prem Singh (supra) and hence, the same are squarely covered by the finding given above. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot stand and are set aside. However, petitioners shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for the last three years only.
- All the writ petitions are allowed.’
‘Since grievance of petitioners in the petition is similar to one which has already been adjudicated by the Court in the aforesaid case, the benefit of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.2.2023 shall also be made available to the petitioners in the same terms, as expeditiously as possible’, the Court observed while allowing the petition.
However, petitioners shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for the last three years only, the Court said.