IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 149 of 2007 (S/S) Sampat Lal Sah S/o Sri Chet Lal Sah ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Shri V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri V.B.S. Negi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.C. Tiwari, the learned Brief Holder for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a class-IV employee in the Nagar Palika Parishad Tehri Garhwal and, thereafter, promoted, initially, on the post of Cashier and, subsequently, as an Accountant and retired on 31st March, 2006. Upon the upgradation of the Nagar Palika in 1997, the petitioner gave an option for centralized service under the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules, 1966. The Board also passed a resolution for the absorption of the petitioner in the centralized service, inspite of which, the petitioner was not absorbed and, accordingly, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 1113 (S/S) of 2002 which was allowed by a judgment dated 31st March, 2006 holding that the petitioner would be deemed to be absorbed in the centralized service w.e.f. 21st August, 1997 and directed the respondents to give all consequential benefits. The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder:- “In view of the above the petitioner shall be deemed to be absorbed in the Centralized Services in accordance with Rule (3) (III) of U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966 on the date of up-gradation of Nagar Palika, Tehri Garhwal to Grade I, i.e.21.8.1997. 2 Consequently, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the respondent no.1. The petitioner is deemed to be absorbed in the Centralised Service on the date of up gradation of Nagar Palika, Tehri i.e. 21.8.1997 and he shall get all consequential benefits accordingly from the date of the order. However, it will be open for the respondent to reconcile so far the past arrears are concerned. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.” Based on the aforesaid order, the respondents calculated the pension and gratuity which according to the petitioner was incorrect. The petitioner made a representation which was rejected by an order dated 14th March, 2007. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is, that the respondents has fixed the pension treating the petitioner as a member of the centralized service w.e.f. 31st March, 2006 and has calculated the pension and gratuity accordingly, whereas, as per the order of the writ court dated 31st March, 2006, it was specifically directed that the petitioner would be deemed to be absorbed in the centralized service w.e.f. 21st August, 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioner consequently submitted that the calculation of the pension treating the petitioner to be absorbed in the centralized service w.e.f. 31st March, 2006 is incorrect. The impugned order dated 14th March, 2007 indicates that the calculation of the arrears is from 31st March, 2006, i.e. from the date of the order passed by the High Court. It seems that the respondents are wrongly interpreting the words “he shall get all consequential benefits accordingly from the date of the order”. The words “from the date of the order” has to be read in the light of the findings given by the writ court in the penultimate paragraph wherein the Court held that the petitioner would be deemed to be absorbed in the centralized service w.e.f. 21st August, 1997. It is clarified that the writ court directed that the 3 consequential benefits that will flow from the date of the order, i.e., from 21st August, 1997 and not from 31st March, 2006. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 14th March, 2007 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pension and gratuity of the petitioner in accordance with the observations made above within six weeks from the date of the presentation of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 26.03.2010 Shiv