Dilshad Ali Siddiqui And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 6455 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 48931 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Dilshad Ali Siddiqui And Anr.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan,Sanjay Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mritunjay Mohan Sahai
 

 
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

Father of the petitioners, late Ishtiyak Ali, was stated to be appointed in U.P. Government Roadways in the year 1960. In June 1972 the U.P. Govt. Roadways was converted into the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ( for short "the Corporation") and the employees who were working in the erstwhile U.P. Govt. Roadways were absorbed in due course of time in newly created U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.

Grievance of the petitioners is that their father was appointed as a Govt. employee  and he was entitled for pension. It is stated that he was given meagre pension under E.P.F. scheme. The issue with regard to entitlement of pension of the employees of erstwhile U.P. Govt. Roadways, came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mirza Athar Beg, ( Special Appeal No. 813 of 2010, decided on 29.11.2010), wherein the Court held that employees who were initially appointed in U.P:. Govt. Roadways are entitled to pension as they were working on pensionable posts. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) no. 7709 of 2011 preferred against the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.7.2013, copy of the aforesaid decisions is on record as annexure no. 4 and 4 to the writ petition.

The only prayer made by the counsel for petitioners is that representation made by the petitioners dated 19.6.2016 for redressal of their grievance appended as annexure no. 5 to the writ petition, be considered by the the appropriate authority.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and Sri M.M. Sahai appearing for the remaining respondents.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the third respondent to consider grievance of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order.

With the above direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 6.10.2016

SNT/