Sarvesh Narain Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 14994 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:32864
 
Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3143 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Sarvesh Narain Mishra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Kumar Yadav,Amit Kumar,Balram Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Naresh Chandra Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Instructions produced today in Court is taken on record.

2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.04.2023 whereby the benefit of qualifying services rendered by the petitioner prior to his date of regularization have not been counted while determining the eligibility of the petitioner and counting his qualifying services.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even in terms of the impugned order, it is recorded that the petitioner was appointed on 25.04.1985 on ad-hoc basis as Assistant Engineer and was granted the regular appointment on 19.05.1989. He argues that in the impugned order, it is recorded and not disputed by the petitioner that on 05.06.1996, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and the services rendered by the petitioner subsequent to 05.06.1996 were not to be counted as there is no provision for pension in the services rendered by the petitioner in the Mandi Parishad.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is not even claiming the benefits of the services rendered by the petitioner subsequent to 05.06.1996 and in fact, claiming that if the services of the petitioner rendered on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 25.04.1985 are computed, the petitioner has clearly rendered the qualifying service of 10 years whereas the impugned order has been passed calculating the services of the petitioner from 19.05.1989 (the date of regularization) up to 05.06.1996, thus, the services rendered by the petitioner on ad-hoc basis have not been counted.

5. He argues that the said issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Dr. Shyam Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr.; 2023 (3) ADJ 138 (LB) whereby this Court had considered and decided the issue with regard to the services rendered by the persons on ad-hoc basis.

6. Considering the said judgment, clearly the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 25.04.1985 up to 19.05.1989 had to be counted for arriving at the qualifying services and thus, to that extent the impugned order dated 05.04.2023 is clearly contrary to the law laid down in the case of Dr. Shyam Kumar (supra).

7. Thus, following the said judgment, the impugned order dated 05.04.2023 cannot be sustained and is quashed with directions to the respondents to compute the services rendered by the petitioner from 25.04.1985 while computing the qualifying services.

8. The respondents shall pass fresh orders in the light of the direction given above and needless to say that the benefits flowing shall also be accorded to the petitioner with all expedition, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

9. The writ petition is allowed in above terms.

Order Date :- 12.5.2023

nishant