Krishna Kumar Bansal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The brief facts of the case, which are not disputed by the respondents are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the then statutory corporation called as Uttar Pradesh Carbide & Chemicals Ltd., by an order of 06.04.1987, while rendering services in the said statutory corporation, the petitioner was granted a permanent status by an order of 30.11.1988 and thereafter on account of certain reasons, the said statutory company, was shut down by the decision taken for its closure as a consequence thereto on 09.05.1994 and the petitioner was declared as to be an retrenched employee as a consequence of the closure of Uttar Pradesh Carbide & Chemicals Ltd.

Being retrench employee, the petitioner was later on considered for an appointment and he was rather granted an appointment by virtue of an order dated 24.04.1996, though apparently if that order is taken into consideration, it seems that the petitioner has been appointed as a Senior Assistant, on a temporary basis but however the reference has been made to the Government Order No.13/9/90 Karmik-1/1988 dated 08.06.1990, wherein it shows that in pursuance to the said appointment the petitioner's services though were treated as to be temporary and could be dispensed with at any time by the respondents. But the fact remains, that ever since having been appointed in the said capacity, the petitioner worked in the department of respondent no.2 i.e. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Division and continued to discharge his services in the said capacity, till his services were granted a regular status by the respondents themselves by virtue of an order dated 02.02.2000. If the said order is taken into consideration, the services of the petitioner thus initially appointed on 24.04.1996, was regularized and given a permanent status in the pay scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590. The name of the petitioner appears at serial no.2 of the said order. As far as this order of granting a permanent status to the petitioner is concerned, its stated that it has not been a subject matter of controversy at any stage of time, hence, it would be deemed, that when he had attained the age of superannuation i.e. on 31.08.2019, having been retired from the post of Administrative Officer, after being granted promotion by the respondents by an order of 15.10.2004 the status of the petitioner would be treated as to be permanent in nature because he was also accorded with a selection grade after completion of eight years of satisfactory services w.e.f. 01.10.2004.

After attainment of the age of superannuation from the post of Administrative Officer, the petitioner was deprived of his pensionary benefits and as a consequence thereto he has filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No.267 of 2021, Krishna Kumar Bansal vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner, with regards to the claim of the petitioner, for the grant of retiral benefits by treating him as to be in continuous service ever since the date of the closure of U.P. Carbide and Chemicals Limited and his absorption made on 24.04.1996, till he has retired from his services on 31.08.2019.

The decision taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the representation of the petitioner, which was directed to be considered had been rejected by the Labour Commissioner by the impugned order, on the basis that the retrenched employees of the U.P. Carbide and Chemicals Limited, they could not be considered for the grant of retiral benefits since having been appointed after 01.10.1986. In fact, if the said cut of date, as provided in the impugned order dated 31.03.2021, is taken into consideration, it is alleged and apparently not shown to be based upon any rational material on record, to justify to provide that cut of, for the purposes of deprivation of an employee to be granted with the retiral benefits after including the entire tenure of service ever since 1987, in the case of the petitioner particularly, when he was admittedly granted a regular status by an order of 02.02.2000. It is not only that if the entire writ petition is taken into consideration after being granted with the regular status on 02.02.2000, the petitioner had also been accorded with the regular promotional scales, the salary and increments too was made payable to regular employees and hence the appointment made in the pre-existing statutory corporation of U.P. Carbide and Chemicals Limited and the cut of provided therein dated 01.10.1986, cannot be justified to be taken as to be the basis of the deprivation of the actual retiral benefits, because it will have a detrimental bearing on the entitlement of the petitioner to be paid with the retiral benefits as services of the petitioner from the period from 06.04.1987 i.e. the date of his initial appointment till the date when he was retrenched and later on absorbed by grant of a temporary appointment on 24.04.1996, has been rendered to be a service in futility. Even on considering the rational given in the impugned order dated 31.03.2021 in fact, it was a bunch of writ petitions, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench on the basis of which the Coordinate Bench on 27.07.2017, it was based on the Government Order as the Government Order No.123/VII-1/2018/18(Udhyog)/2017 dated 20.02.2018, which has been taken as to be the basis, which has provided the cut of, of appointment in the U.P. Carbides and Chemicals Limited, as to be the foundation for extension of the retiral benefits to the petitioner or similarly placed employees, who were retrenched on account to the closure of the said company on identical factual background.

In fact, the rational given of providing the cut of, of 01.10.1986, I am of the view, that after the petitioner, has been granted a regular status with the department of respondent no.2 by an order of 02.02.2000 and in that eventuality his entire services, which he has rendered in the erstwhile U.P. Carbides and Chemicals Limited it ought to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determination of retiral benefits of the petitioner. Hence, the logic assigned by the Labour Commissioner, while passing the impugned order on 31.03.2021 by attracting the implications of Government Order dated 20.02.2018, apart from being inhumane, is arbitrary too for the reason being that the services rendered by the petitioner it ought to have been taken into consideration for the purposes of fixation of the retiral benefits of the petitioner.

Consequently, the impugned order of 31.03.2021 is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the re-determination of the petitioner's retiral benefits, after including in it the entire period of services rendered by him with effect from 06.04.1987, till attainment of his age of superannuation of 31.08.2019. The entire exercise would be completed by respondent no.2 within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

However, on the determination of the retiral benefits, thus to be made, the respondents they are directed to pay the interest at the bank rate on the amount, which has been withheld by the respondents payable to the petitioner towards his retiral benefits.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, subject to the above observations.