Shiv Kumar Dwivedi vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1942 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6784 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Dwivedi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. & O
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

1. Heard Sri Anurag Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. By the present writ petition, petitioner, who worked as work charge employee, claim benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 02.09.2019 passed in case of 'Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others', (Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2019 and other connected matters). Paragraph-36 of the aforesaid judgment read as:-

"36. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that services rendered in the work-charged establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid rule for grant of pension. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed."

3. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for petitioner states that he is not pressing relief (ii) of the writ petition.

4. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, however, he states that now the State Government has come up with an ordinance i.e. 'The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service For Pension And Validation Ordinance, 2020' (U.P. Ordinance No.19 of 2020) and same is required to take into consideration while deciding the representation.

5. In view thereof, petitioner is permitted to make his fresh separate detailed representation to respective appropriate respondents i.e. 2, Engineer-in-Chief Irrigation Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Lucknow, respondent no.3 Executive Engineer, Sharda Nahar Khand-2, Irrigation Department, Lucknow raising all his grievance, annexing therewith a copy of this writ petition along with annexures and all the documents/judgments of this Court, if any, in support of his claim within a period of two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.

6. In case such representation is moved by petitioner, concerned respondents no.2 and 3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law as well as in light of the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court dated 02.09.2019 passed in case of 'Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others' (Supra), and ordinance of the State Government, by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him.

7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 3.2.2021

Shubhankar

(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)