Allahabad High Court
Shravan Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6957 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shravan Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Secondary Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Sri R.C. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent - State.
2. It is case of the petitioner that he was granted appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Lt. Grade) on ad hoc basis on 26.11.1990. His service was regularized in view of provisions contained under U.P. Act No.5 of 1982 vide order dated 05.03.2002.
3. He continued to discharge his duties and on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.03.2020. Without taking into consideration the ad hoc services rendered by him as Assistant Teacher, the respondent issued a PPO, which is at page 56 of the paper book, wherein services rendered as ad hoc teacher has not been taken into consideration for reckoning the qualifying service for grant of pension.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking into account the ad hoc services rendered by the petitioner other benefits as admissible to him have been granted to the petitioner by the respondents. He submitted that there is no justification on the part of the respondents in excluding the ad hoc services of the petitioner while calculating qualifying service for grant of pension.
5. He further submitted that ventilating his grievances, the petitioner has represented the matter before respondent No.2 on 07.09.2020 and 08.12.2020 but no action whatsoever has been taken till date. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others; Writ-A No.61974 of 2011 and submitted that in case direction is issued for consideration of claim of the petitioner in the light of judgment passed in the case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (Supra), ends of justice would be met.
6. Per contra, learned standing counsel submitted that in case claim of the petitioner along with the judgment referred has been setup before the respondent, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed within a reasonable period.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and the judgment relied upon.
8. In view of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending. Accordingly, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive representation along with copy of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is filed within aforesaid period, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and shall pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 16.3.2021
Adarsh K Singh
