Important decision of Allahabad High Court in favor of government employees, service before regularization will be added under the new law

The Allahabad High Court has said that in Uttar Pradesh, the Government has amended the Retirement Benefits Rules 1961 to define the qualifying service of government employees from the year 1961. In such a situation, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh will now be decided under this newly amended law. A division bench of two judges of the High Court has not upheld the order passed in favor of the petitioner of a single judge on the basis of Prem Singh case.

The High Court said that the benefit cannot be given on the basis of a court decision given before the law was amended. The provisions of a law amendment with retrospective effect cannot be ignored without challenging it. According to the rules on the vacant post, only the appointment made under the law is valid. Failure to regularize on time is deprivation of seniority and other service benefits. Government cannot do pick and choose. No one can be denied the benefit of Service Regularization Rules.

At the same time, the court took a decision on the payment of pension including retirement benefits to Raj Bahadur, retired junior engineer from Kollitpur, Chief Engineer of Minor Irrigation Department, from the date from which he was entitled for regularization, taking a decision in two months and six weeks after that. It has been directed to pay the benefits arising out of service.

This order has been given by the division bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava while disposing of the special appeal of the state government. On the appeal, the state government’s Additional Chief Standing Advocate Ramanand Pandey argued.

His argument was that the government in Uttar Pradesh has amended the Retirement Benefits Rules 1961 under the new law in 2021. In this amendment, qualifying service has been defined and implemented with retrospective effect from 1961. It was said that after the new rule came into effect, the decision given by the Supreme Court in the Prem Singh case has now become ineffective.

It is to be known that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department on January 1, 1989. He worked for years on a daily wage without a post. On 21 February 97, the court directed the government to take a decision on payment of minimum wages. Following this, the Chief Engineer ordered payment of minimum wages on 3rd September 97. But refused to regularize the service. Which was challenged in the Service Tribunal.

The court said that he was working before the service regularization rules came into force. He is entitled to be regularized under the rules. The Tribunal accepted the claim and ordered regularization of the petitioner. On the petition against this, the court ordered the government to take a decision after considering it under the Rules 2001. The petitioner was regularized on 31 December 18. Thereafter he retired on 30 September 20. Due to non-completion of his ten years of service, he was denied extortion pension, then he filed a petition in the High Court.

According to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Prem Singh case, the single bench decided to give the payment of pension etc. retirement benefits to the department on the basis of the decision given in Prem Singh of the Supreme Court from the date of the first appointment of the petitioner, which was in the form of deliveries in 1989. instructed. This order was challenged by the government in a special appeal.

The government said that the law was amended in 2021. This amendment has been implemented since 1961. Under which only the case of appointment against the post on a temporary or permanent basis under the law will be included in the service period. The post of petitioner is a post coming under the ambit of Public Service Commission. Because the appointment of the petitioner was not made against the vacant post as per the rules. Therefore his daily services will not be added. Prem Singh case will not be applicable in this case.

The single bench did not consider the provisions of the ordinance issued in 2020 and amendment of the law in 2021. The Court agreed with this argument and said that the Single Bench has committed a mistake. But the court did not consider the delay of the department to be proper in regulating the petitioner and said that the employee cannot be held guilty for the delay in regularizing the service.