Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 11 May, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:32565
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31928 of 2017
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Rural Engineering Deptt.And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Savita Jain
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 for getting a direction issued to the respondents to count the adhoc services rendered by him from 3.12.1987 to 30.12.2002 for the purpose of pension.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Storekeeper on adhoc basis on 3.12.1987 and his services were regularized on the post of Junior Engineer on 30.12.2002. He was confirmed on the said post on 21.10.2005. The petitioner has retired on 31.8.2017.
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. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled for counting of services rendered by him prior to his regularization.
In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to refix the pension of petitioner by counting the period of adhoc services rendered by him prior to his regularization. However, petitioner shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only and payment shall be made to the petitioner expeditiously.
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
Order Date :- 11.5.2023
Sachin
