Allahabad High Court
Ratna Prabha Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 8 July, 2021
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6933 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ratna Prabha Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhola Nath Yadav,Abhishek Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
The case is taken up through video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State.
Leaned counsel for the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 17.04.2021 passed by Ziladhikari Chandauli by claiming the husband of the petitioner for family pension and other retiral benefits.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the sole ground of his benefits are denied in the impugned order is that though husband of petitioner was appointed on the post of Lekhpal on 10.02.1978 but he was regularize on 21.08.2006 and, therefore, since his regularization is after the cut off date of 01.04.2005 from which the old pension scheme was discontinue. The petitioner is not entitled for the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in case of Ram Narayan Ram Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others in (Writ A No. 57515 of 2016) dated 13.08.2019 in the similar facts this Court held:-
"Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute that the petitioner came to be appointed in 1978 against a pensionable post, he was subsequently confirmed in 1992 with retrospective effect i.e. 1980 and since then the petitioner continued to perform his duties until his regularization in 2006 upon successfully completing training.
In the circumstances, the temporary appointment which has been subsequently regularized, it would relate back to the date of his initial appointment as is evident from the promotion order read with Article 370 of the Civil Services Regulation. It is, therefore, not open for the respondents to decline petitioner post retiral dues without computing the past service rendered by him.
Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to sustain the legality of the impugned order.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17 October 2016 passed by the second respondent, Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue, Lucknow and the consequential order dated 27 October 2016 passed by the fifth respondent, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Ballia, is set aside and quashed. The petitioner is entitled to post retiral dues, including, pension and gratuity upon computing the past services with effect from 12 January 1980, which shall be paid expeditiously preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, petitioner shall be entitled to 7% interest on the entire sum from the due date.
The writ petition is allowed.
No cost."
On the basis of the aforesaid statements made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the concerned authority is illegal and against the law.
Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the applicability and correctness of the judgment in case of Ram Narayan Ram (Supra).
The present writ petition stands allowed.
The impugned order dated 17.04.2021 passed by Ziladhikari Chandauli is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to the post retiral dues.
The respondents are directed to sanction and grant the family pension and post retiral dues to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a computer generated/certified copy of this with representation is placed before him.
Order Date :- 8.7.2021
Rahul.
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
