Uday Raj Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2186 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6815 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Uday Raj Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

Heard Sri Shailesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State respondent nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for the following reliefs:-

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to take into account the entire length of service of the petitioner computed from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of computation of the retiral benefits of the petitioner and further provide pension in view of the U.P. State aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Fund Insurance Pensions Rules, 1964 & by virtue of Judgment and order dated 29.1.2015 in the case of Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav passed by the Hon'ble High Court and also follow the same verdict rendered in writ petition-A No. 17819 of 2007 (Mangali Prasad Verma Vs. State of U.P. & others), Writ A No. 40837 of 2015 Chandrika Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 5.8.2015 and Writ-A No. 14476 of 2020 Narsingh Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 29.1.2021 with 18% interest (Annexure No.2 and 3)."

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that entire length of service of the petitioner has not been computed from the date of initial appointment and further pension has not been reviewed under U.P. State aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Fund Insurance Pensions Rules, 1964 as well as in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav decided on 29.1.2015. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner represented the matter before respondent no.3 Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) Region -Gorakhpur vide representation dated 20.01.2022, which remain pending till date.

Learned Standing counsel submits that no useful purpose would be served to keep the writ petition pending and suitable direction may be issued by this Court to the authority concerned for deciding the same in time bound manner.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, direction is issued upon respondent no.3-Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) Region -Gorakhpur to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2022 by speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

With the above direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 6.5.2022

Noman