1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 12.8.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Rural Development, rejecting the representation of the petitioner for adding the services of the father of the petitioner w.e.f. 16.7.1954 to 30.7.1956 for the purposes of retiral benefits.
3. It has been submitted that the father of the petitioner after working as Extension Guide in Education Department was appointed as Block Development Officer/Extension Training Officer in Regional Rural Development Institute, Gazipur and he retired from the said post on 30.6.1988 after attaining the age of superannuation. The father of the petitioner during his life time had applied for addition of his service as Extension Guide since 16.7.1954 to 30.4.1956 for the purpose of retiral benefits. The request of father of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent no.2 but a wrong condition was made in the pension payment order dated 31.8.1999 that the above services as Extension Guide would be counted after appropriate order is passed by the Cooperative Department. In response to the correspondence exchanged between the parties, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow wrote a letter on 14.6.2008 to the Principal, Regional Rural Development Institute, Gazipur, accepting that the father of the petitioner had worked on the post of Extension Guide, which was a government service and that it should be added for pensionary benefits. The District Inspector of Schools, Gazipur (DIOS) by his letter dated 30.12.2002 sent to the Director of Education accepted that the post of Extension Guide was a government service. A copy of the letter was endorsed to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the Registrar Cooperative Societies also confirmed by his letter dated 5.10.2005, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 6 to the petition.
4. This court has perused Annexure 6 to the petition which is a letter sent by the Director, Secondary Education to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which has endorsed the request/comments of the DIOS dated 30.12.2002. It has been submitted that after making repeated representation, the father of the petitioner died on 23.11.1999 and the mother of the petitioner also died on 14.4.2007. The petitioner is the only legal heir and entitled to get other retiral benefits of his father Late Bankuth Nath Mishra and, therefore, he pursued the matter with the Educational Authorities and also with the Cooperative Department. When the petitioner failed to get any response, he filed Writ Petition No.60265 of 2010. This Court disposed of the writ petition by its order dated 30.9.2010, directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation. To give the benefit that would be accrued to the father of the petitioner, had his services of two years rendered in 1954 to 1956 being counted, this representation was made by the petition on 8.10.2010, which has been decided now by the respondent no.2, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner could not produce the appointment letter and relieving order of the petitioner's father, therefore, it cannot be said that the services of the father of the petitioner were actually rendered in the Education Department.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the duty of the respondents to maintain the record with regard to each and every employee who has rendered service in their department. The service book of the father of the petitioner was still in the custody of the respondent no.2 and in the said service book, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the petition, the services rendered w.e.f. 16.7.1954 to 30.4.1956 has been verified by the then DIOS. It has further been submitted that since this Court had given a time period for decision of the representation, which was not followed by the respondents and the petitioner had filed Contempt Petition No.3452 of 2011 (Vijay Prakash Mishra vs. Sri Sanjeev Kumar, Commissioner, Rural Development, Lucknow) and this Court had issued notices to the respondents therein, the respondent no.2 with malafide intention has rejected the representation on frivolous grounds.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents, they have stated in Para 3A that despite best efforts being made, the appointment letter/appointment order of the father of the petitioner as Extension Guide could not be traced. The petitioner was requested to produce a copy of the same. The petitioner also could not produce the same before the authority concerned. Therefore, in the absence of appointment letter and the order of discharge from the post of Extension Guide, the services rendered as Extension Guide could not be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits. It has been further stated in Para 6 of the counter affidavit that the father of the petitioner came in the Cooperative Department after leaving the services from the Education Department. Since the appointment letter and the discharge letter issued from the Education Department are necessary documents on the basis of which, earlier services of the father of the petitioner could be verified, the representation of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent no.2.
7. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, the facts as mentioned in the writ petition have been reiterated and it has been further mentioned that the service book was available with the respondent no.2 and he could have verified from the same whether his father had actually rendered services in the Education Department w.e.f. 16.7.1954 to 30.4.1956. According to the petitioner, the service book is sufficient evidence of working of the father of the petitioner in the Education Department.
8. It has not been denied by the respondents that the services rendered by the father of the petitioner as Extension Guide was government service. The entries of appointment and the relieving order having been duly recorded in the service book, it should be considered to be sufficient for addition of service rendered in the Education Department for re-calculation of retiral benefits of his father.
9. This Court having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel is of the considered opinion that the order impugned in this petition dated 12.8.2011 having been passed by the Commissioner only on the ground that the appointment letter and the discharge letter could not be pr
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
oduced by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 to verify the services rendered in the Education Department, is liable to the set aside and is set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.2 to reconsider the representation and pass appropriate orders as to why the entries in the service book, which the petitioner alleges is still with the respondents, cannot be considered as a valid evidence for the purpose of re-calculation of retiral benefits of the father of the petitioner. An appropriate decision be taken in the matter by the respondents within a period of four months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned. 10. The writ petition stands partly allowed.