Allahabad High Court
Dr. Mohammad Khalid Siddiqui & ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 30 July, 2021
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 16352 of 2021
Petitioner :- Dr. Mohammad Khalid Siddiqui & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag-I,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui,Jahan Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that this Court has decided similar controversy in so many writ petitions following the decision of this Court in re; 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. He has further submitted that recently this Court has decided the case of one Dr. Narendra Kumar Dalela and Another Vs. State of U.P. and others, Service Single No.27739 of 2019 vide judgment and order dated 19.11.2019 following the decision of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (supra), therefore, this matter may be decided in terms of the aforesaid orders.
Sri Shukla has requested that some time may be given to file counter affidavit but the controversy has already been settled in case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (supra) and the present controversy in question is similar to the case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (supra), therefore, I do not feel it appropriate to call upon the counter affidavit.
The petitioners retired from service while holding the post of Reader/ Professor. They claim that they were granted appointment on 04.09.1989, 12.09.1989, 01.09.1989 and 15.09.1989 on ad hoc basis and their service has been ignored while calculating the qualifying service for the payment of post retiral dues and pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon certain judgments in the cases of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (supra) 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."
For the grant of said benefit, the petitioners have approached to the respondents requesting to grant the benefit of the aforesaid judgment.
After having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.
In view of the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (Supra), the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
Thus, following the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (Supra), respondents are directed to pay the petitioners the terminal benefits by counting their services from the date of their initial appointments with the State Government and the respondents shall work out the pension and other dues payable to them accordingly and make the payment within the next two months.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
