Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8120 of 2022
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to grant pensionary benefits treating his appointment w.e.f. 17.04.1984 under old pension scheme.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in above regard the petitioners have already represented the matter before the respondent vide representation dated 06.05.2022, but the same has remained pending till date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh v. State of U.P. and others; 2019 (10) SCC 516 which has been followed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey and others v. State of U.P. and others (Writ - A No.- 5817 of 2020) and by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chetram v. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal Defective No.- 1278 of 2020) and also in a series of other judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the representations of the petitioners may be directed to be disposed of accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order of Supreme Court in the case of The State of Gujarat and others v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.- 1109 of 2022) decided on 18th February, 2022. The Supreme Court while dismissing the special leave to appeal under the order has observed thus:
"It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/ pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continuous service shall be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.
In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 yeas service.
Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the concerned competent respondent to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner as raised in his representations in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) and the order issued in the case of State of Gujarat (supra) and Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chetram (supra) considering the applicability of pensionary benefits applying the principles laid down in the above referred judgments (supra), within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and in the event petitioner has retired from an establishment where pension rules are applicable and claim of the petitioner is found to be valid, his pension shall be fixed as per the rules and the entire post retirement dues including pension be released within a further period of six weeks.
Order Date :- 26.5.2022
Sanjeev
