Disposed

Sandeep Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018WRIA/24745/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ directing authorities to grant benefits under the old pension scheme, arguing his appointment and later qualification should invoke the scheme. Relying on a specific prior judgment, the court directed a respondent to examine the matter first instance and decide within six weeks, expressly reserving opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be examined by the respondent at first instance; respondent to decide within six weeks.

Sandeep Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24745 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Yadav,Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to provide benefit of old pension scheme.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that since he was appointed as untrained teacher on compassionate ground prior to the annulment of old pension scheme, on 20.11.2003 and later on acquired the training qualification in 2014 and only for this reason alone he is not being benefited of the old pension scheme in terms of the direction of deduction of GPF as per the old pension scheme.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to a detailed judgement of this Court in the case of Ravindra Nath Taigor v. State of U.P. through Secretary Basic Education and Others, Service Single No.7762 of2017 dated 28th February, 2018 appended as annexure 5 to the writ petition and submits that the controversy stands resolved and the issue is no more res integra.

¶9

On the last occasion, he was directed to verify as to whether judgment ( supra ) has been appealed against or not. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court, that there is no appeal preferred against the judgment dill date.

¶10

Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 does not dispute the above factual legal position.

¶11

In view of above, let matter of the petitioner be examined at the first instance by the 3rd

¶12

respondent and take decision in the matter within period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is however, made clear that in view of submissions advanced and quoted above, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶13

Writ petition stands disposed of in view of aforesaid directions and observations.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Sanjeev

Sandeep Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pushpa Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mohammad Zaved Mekrani and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Baqir Raza Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Lajjawati Vs State of U.P. and Others

Priyanka Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Meenakshi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others