Allahabad High Court
Ram Ashish Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 22 November, 2024
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:183049
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8647 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ram Ashish Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjai Kumar Singh,Sanjeev Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondents.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed herein, no useful purpose would be served by putting the opposite party to notice and keeping this petition pending before this Court. However, in case the opposite party feels aggrieved by the order his/her right to seek modification/variation of the order is being kept reserved.
3. The petitioner preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayer:-
" (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned orders dated 24.01.2024/30.01.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3-Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) VII Division, Gorakhpur, withdrawing his pension as well as the consequential impugned order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Treasury Officer, Gorakhpur (Annexure No. 11 and 12 at page Nos. 44 & 48 to the writ petition).
(b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to restore the pension of the petitioner granted to him vide order dated 07/15.02.2019 by reckoning the entire period of ad-hoc service rendered by him from 25.07.1994 till his regularization order dated 15.06.2017 for the purpose of his eligibility to receive pension also in light of the judgment passed in case of Hriday Narayan (Supra) (Annexure Nos. 7 and 14 at Page Nos. 33 to 57 to the writ petition)."
4. It is argued that the pension of the petitioner was duly sanctioned by the respondent no. 3 vide its order dated P.P.O. No. 19350/07.02.2019, the aforesaid order was recalled by him vide order dated 20.01.2024, hence the present petition.
5. It is argued that after the aforesaid order, a consequential order was also passed by respondent no. 5 namely Treasury Officer, District Gorakhpur on 13.05.2024.
6. It is argued that though the petitioner started getting his pension from the year 2019 vide order dated P.P.O. No. 19350/07.02.2019 but without assigning any cogent reasons and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the aforesaid order has been recalled.
7. Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner states that the identical controversy has already been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 04.04.2024 passed in Writ A No. 2219 of 2024 (Hriday Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) and judgment and order dated 22.05.2024 passed in Writ A No. 5859 of 2024 (Vinod Kumar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others).
8. This fact is also admitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. In view of what has been held in Hriday Narayan Singh (supra) and Vinod Kumar Tripathi (supra), the order dated 24.01.2024/30.01.2024 passed by therespondent no. 3-Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) VII Division, Gorakhpur, is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, specially in terms of the direction given by this Court in the case of Hriday Narayan Singh (supra) and Vinod Kumar Tripathi (Supra) within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 22.11.2024
Arti
