State Of Up And Another vs Ashish Srivastava And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9729 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of Up And Another vs Ashish Srivastava And 4 Others on 25 April, 2025

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64005-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1010 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- State Of Up And Another
 
Respondent :- Ashish Srivastava And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.,Nagendra Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Khare
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned Single Judge after a detailed consideration of materials on record has allowed the writ petition and held the writ petitioners entitled to the benefit of old pension scheme. For coming to such conclusion learned Single Judge has noticed the fact that recruitment process was initiated in the year 1999. Though the recruitment landed in controversy which ultimately came to be settled in the year 2010 by the Supreme Court but it remains undisputed that the subsequent recruitment was initiated in the year 2003 and those who have been appointed in the subsequent recruitment are in receipt of benefits under the old pension scheme. Learned Single Judge has relied upon rule 5 of U.P. Government Service Seniority Rules, 1991 to state that the writ petitioners will be placed higher in seniority than those who were appointed in the subsequent recruitment exercise of 2003. It has, therefore, been held that once juniors are in receipt of pension under the old pension scheme its denial to seniors would be arbitrary.

2. The narration of facts of the case as also the discussion leading to the finding that denial of benefit of old pension scheme to the writ petitioners would be arbitrary is clearly borne out from the materials on record.

3. Learned State counsel also does not dispute the narration of facts by the learned Single Judge as well as the conclusions drawn, based thereupon, in view of the statutory scheme. In such circumstances, there is no occasion to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

4. The only ground pressed by Sri P.K. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State is that the direction to grant all consequential benefits within a period of three months is creating difficulty, inasmuch the issue as to how the reitral benefits would be worked out has been left untouched.

5. Such submission of the appellant is opposed by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, who submits that the obvious conclusion of the direction of the learned Single Judge would be that all retiral dues that are payable under the old pension scheme would be released to the writ petitioners.

6. We do not find any substance in the grievance raised by the State, inasmuch as it goes without saying that all retiral benefits which are admissible, in accordance with law, as per the old pension scheme would be released to the writ petitioners as and when occasion arises.

7. Subject to the observations made above, this special appeal fails and is consigned to records.

Order Date :- 25.4.2025

RA