Rameshwar Dayal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 2271 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3023 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Rameshwar Dayal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Radha Mohan Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

Heard Sri Radha Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4.

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to fix and pay pension to petitioner since 1.2.2003 current month to month and in arrears with interest of belated payment."

The facts in brief as contended in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of peon/Class IV in a Junior High School on 19.12.1962. He was superannuated from service on 31.1.2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the date of initial appointment till the date of superannuation the petitioner work throughout in the institution in question and received his salary from the State exchequer. It is further contended that since the post retirement benefit was not provided to the petitioner, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.54460 of 2004. The said writ petition was finally decided on 20.12.2004. It is further contended that after the order passed in the aforesaid case certain post retiral dues were paid to the petitioner but in so far as the pension part is concerned, the same was not paid till date. In this regard petitioner made various representations to the authorities from time to time. He further contended that petitioner received information under Right to Information Act in the year 2012 that the petitioner is not entitled for his pension since he does not fulfill 10 years of service before his retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgement passed in Writ A No.37306 of 2016 (Ajay Shanker Srivastav Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.) decided on 28.11.2017. He further relied upon a judgement passed by this Court in the case of Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2007 (1) ESC 488 decided on 15.5.2006.

The matter requires consideration.

Counter affidavit be filed by all the respondents within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks' thereafter.

List on 27.5.2019.

Order Date :- 2.4.2019

Pramod Tripathi