Ram Bajrangi Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 26433 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:62412
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7095 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Bajrangi Lal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Misra,Mridula Saxena,Sarvesh Kumar Saxena
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd. Ahsanussamad Faridi
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Saxena, the counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Mohd. Ahsanussanad Faridi, the counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:

"i. to, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to regularize the service of petitioner from 26/08/2003 like similarly situated persons and accordingly ensure the payment of regular pension to the petitioner.

ii. to, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to Count the ad-hoc services of petitioner from 07-03-1995 for qualifying service for the purpose of payment of pension and other retiral dues at par with similarly situated persons.

iii. to, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the arrear of pension to the petitioner along with admissible rate of interest."

3. The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 7.3.1995 and his services were regularized on 11.03.2016 as Junior Engineer (Civil) in Nagar Panchayat, Ashrafpur, Kichhauchha, District Ambedkarnagar under the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services.

4. It is stated that the petitioner retired on 31.10.2020 after attaining the age of superannuation as such he is confining his prayer for payment of post-retiral dues with consequential benefits after confirmation of his ad-hoc/temporary service from a date which the persons similar to the petitioner were given the benefit i.e. 26.8.2003.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the Rules applicable being Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Services Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981, qualifying service has been clearly defined under Rule 2(X) which made it very clear that even the services rendered as ad hoc would be counted for the purposes of calculating the qualifying services as such the stand taken by the respondent is not justified. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shashi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., wherein this Court specifically considered the issue of qualifying services as referred to in the erstwhile U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, which is paramateria to the Rule 2 (X) of 2001 Rules and held that the ad hoc services shall also be counted while calculating qualifying services for pensionery benefit along with said judgment and said rules.

6. He further places reliance on record and argues that the persons who are similar to the petitioner were given the benefit of counting the services with effect from 26.8.2003.

7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pass an order in the case of the petitioner, in view of the directions given herein above as well as in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shashi Srivastava Versus State of U.P. and another passed in Writ A No. 47448 of 2014 decided on 20.05.2019, within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. While doing so, the respondents shall also pass an order with regard to the claim of interest by the petitioner.

Order Date :- 26.9.2023

Arun