Allahabad High Court
Ram Shankar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5212 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ram Shankar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Samanya Anubhag-3, Lko & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of State respondents.
The petitioner retired from service while holding the post of Kanisth Sahayak in Ayurvedic Department. He claims that he was granted appointment on 15.03.1989 on ad hoc basis and his service has been ignored while calculating the qualifying service for the payment of post retiral dues and pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon certain judgments in the cases of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided vide judgment and order dated 01.03.2012 in Writ-A No.61974 of 2011 and Shanta Rai Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors. decided vide judgment and order dated 25.10.2017 in Writ Petition No.25433 (SS) of 2017. Relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 01.03.2012, passed in Writ-A No. 61974 of 2011 is being quoted below:
"For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the petitioner has rendered qualifying pensionary service with effect from the date of his joining in the State Government on his option, and which shall be treated as service qualifying for pension and for which under the Government Orders, by which the hospitals were provincialised, the contribution of his pension has been deposited by the Zila Parishad.
The objection, that the contribution of pension, has not been deposited in the relevant account head, is too technical to be accepted. The amount has been credited to the account of the State Government in the Treasury. It is for the Treasury Officer to appropriate the amount in the correct account head. An error in depositing the amount in the wrong account head cannot be treated to have taken away the right of petitioner to pension based upon his continuance in the State Government beginning from 1991.
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.9.2011 is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to pension with effect from 01.2.1991, the date on which he joined in the State Government. The State Government will calculate his pension and issue the pension payment order within two months. The entire arrears of pension shall be paid over to him within a period of three months."
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case direction is issued to the respondent No.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judgment in the case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (Supra) with a direction to pass appropriate order, justice would be served.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has no objection in case the writ petition is disposed of at this stage with the aforesaid direction.
In view of the above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of judgment and order dated 01.03.2012 rendered in the case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (Supra) and to pass appropriate order within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021
nishant/-
