Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Prakash vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. ... on 17 February, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16805 of 2021
Petitioner :- Dinesh Prakash
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Vyavasaik Shiksha And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 19.11.2019 and 15.4.2021 whereby the respondents have denied the service benefits w.e.f. 31.10.1983 till 7.8.1989 for the purpose of pension, Gratuity, ACP and promotional pay scale. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11.11.2020, whereby respondents have refused to grant benefit of ACP to the petitioner.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Instructor (Language) on adhoc basis against a substantive post on 31.10.1983 and his services were regularized on 30.7.2009. The petitioner has retired on 31.8.2018.
Similar controversy has already been adjudicated by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 17.2.2023 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, leading one is Writ-A No.8968 of 2022, wherein issue relating to interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Act of 2021 for counting qualifying service for the purpose of pension with regard to adhoc employees has been dealt with in detail by this Court. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads:
"..19. The very initial appointment letters show that petitioners were appointed against substantive posts on adhoc basis. Since their appointment is against a substantive post, hence, they are squarely covered even by Section 2 of the Act of 2021 as it stands. Further, in view of interpretation as given above to Section 2 of the Act of 2021 and it is held that the services performed in temporary or permanent nature need to be counted for pensionary purposes, otherwise, it again would be hit by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh (supra), thus, there can be no dispute that all the petitioners are are entitled for counting of services rendered by them as ad-hoc employees for pensionary purposes.
In view of above, all the impugned orders are set aside.
....
22. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, all the orders impugned in the writ petitions are passed either on the ground that they are covered by the Ordinance/Act of 2021 or they were not party in case of Prem Singh (supra) or without considering the judgment of Prem Singh (supra) and hence, the same are squarely covered by the finding given above. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot stand and are set aside. However, petitioners shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only.
23. All the writ petitions are allowed."
Since grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is similar to one which has already been adjudicated by this Court in the aforesaid case, the benefit of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.2.2023 shall also be made available to the present petitioner in the same terms.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 19.11.2019, 15.4.2021 and 11.11.2020 are set aside. However, petitioner shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only.
.
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
Order Date :- 17.2.2023
Sachin
