Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy., ... on 15 July, 2021
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 14969 of 2017
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy., Planning Deptt. & 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Farooqahmad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.List revised.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to count past ad-hoc services of the petitioner rendered on the post of Research Officer (Engineering) with effect from 11.6.1982 to 2.11.2003 for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Further prayer is for issuance of fresh pension payment order after counting past ad-hoc services.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner had been appointed as a Research Officer (Engineering) in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 26.9.1981 on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner took the charge of the post of Research Officer (Engineering) on 11.6.1982. The petitioner's services have been regularised on 3.11.2003. Thereafter the petitioner has been retired on 31.12.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that it is only the period from the date of his regularisation till his retirement which has been counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and the ad-hoc period of the petitioner's services has not been counted. He has placed reliance on various judgments copies of which have been filed as Annexures-13 to 16 to the writ petition to argue that period of ad-hoc service is also to be counted towards qualifying service. It is prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for counting of the ad-hoc period of service considering the judgments as have been referred above.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that as per the rules only the regular service can be counted as qualifying service.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record what is apparent is that initially the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Research Officer (Engineering), his services have been regularised on 3.11.2003 and subsequently the petitioner retired on 31.12.2016. The period of ad-hoc service from 11.6.1982 till his regularisation has not been counted for the purpose of pension. This Court in various judgments as have been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-13 to 16 to the writ petition has considered the similar issue.
As the matter pertains to counting of ad-hoc period of service, the same is to be considered by the respondents themselves at the first instance. As such, present petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move a comprehensive representation enclosing therewith the judgments upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for counting of his ad-hoc service before the respondent No.1 within two weeks. In case such a representation is made then the respondent No.1 shall proceed to consider the same in accordance with law and relevant rules within three months from the date of submission of representation along with a certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it is for respondent No.1 to consider all aspects of the matter and taken a decision in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 15.7.2021
Rakesh
