Allahabad High Court
Dr. Awadhesh Narain Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 27 April, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4839 of 2023
Petitioner :- Dr. Awadhesh Narain Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghwendra Prasad Mishra,Avneesh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 25.01.2023 through which the services as rendered by the petitioner as an ad-hoc basis, has been denied for pensionery benefits and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any post retiral benefits since the services as rendered before the regularization over the same post were ad-hoc in nature.
3. The initial appointment letter shows that the petitioner was appointed against the substantive post on ad-hoc basis, since the appointment of the petitioner is against the substantive post hence the same is squarely covered even by Section 2 of the Act of 2021 as it stands. Further in view of the interpretation as given in the judgment of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2019 (10) SCC 516, wherein it has been held that the services performed in temporary or permanent in nature, need to be counted for pensionery benefits, otherwise it again would be contrary to the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court, thus there can be no dispute that the petitioner is not entitled for counting all his services rendered by him as an ad-hoc employee for pensionery benefits.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel highlighted the stand taken up by the responding authorities while denying the pensionery benefits in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 25.01.2023, wherein it has been mentioned that the services as rendered by any of the employee under the status of temporary employee or the regular, will only be entitled for pensionery benefits,
5. The illustration as made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has already been negated in the verdict pronounced by a coordinate Bench while deciding a bunch of matters pertaining to the employees who rendered their services as temporary, work-charges or ad-hoc in Writ A No.8968 of 2022 (Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) connected with 50 others decided on 17.02.2023.
6. By bare perusal of the judgment dated 17.02.2023, it is crystal clear that the similar controversy has been settled in pursuance of the verdict pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court which is not disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as after having the orders passed in Writ A No.8968 of 2022, the respondents were not at liberty to deny the pensionery benefits to the employees who rendered their services as ad-hoc basis before regularization over the same post which were the substantive vacancies available over which they rendered their services as ad-hoc employee.
8. In wake of the same, the order dated 25.01.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for pensionery benefits after calculation of the entire period as rendered by him as an ad-hoc employee.
9. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
10. The entire exercise in shape of extending the pensionery benefits shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.
Order Date :- 27.4.2023
Vivek Kr.
