Disposed

Dr. Rakesh Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2019WRIA/10734/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition seeking pension for an ad-hoc medical officer based on preceding judgments. The petitioner directs the respondent to process the representation for terminal benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent shall consider and decide the petitioner's claim for pension and other dues by a reasoned order within three months.

Dr. Rakesh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10734 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Rakesh Tyagi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Budhwar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

Petitioner claims to be appointed on 09.07.1988 as Medical Doctor/Medical Officer in Ayurvedic/or Unani Medicine on ad-hoc basis. Pursuant thereof, petitioner along with other doctors came to be appointed Medical Officer on ad-hoc basis by State Government in the pay-scale at Rs. 850-1720. It is urged that petitioner continued as an adhoc Doctor since 09.07.1999 until his regularization on 16 March 2005.

¶7

By means of the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent, Principal Secretary (Medical Education), Anubhag-2 (Ayurvedic), Government of U.P., Lucknow, to pay pension and post retiral benefits to the petitioner after computing services rendered on adhoc basis that is w.e.f. 09.07.1999. It is further urged that the case of the petitioner, on admitted facts, is covered by the Division Bench decision rendered in Dr. Ravindra Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others Writ-A No. 22833 of 2018 decided along with other writ petitions. The order dated 23 January 2019 reads thus:

¶8

"Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

¶9

The petitioners had approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitions were transferred to this Court for decision as petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

The petitioners were initially appointed as Medical Officers (Ayurvedic) on contract basis. Subsequently their services were directed to be treated on ad-hoc by separate orders passed sometimes in the year 1992 onwards viz. 28.2.1992. The State Government vide order dated 16.3.2005 directed for regularisation of their services on the post of Medical Officers(Ayurvedic).

¶11

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once their services on the post of Medical Officers (Ayurvedic) have been regularised under the orders of the State Government, the services rendered by them on ad-hoc basis till the date of their regularisation ought to be added in their regular services for the purposes of grant of terminal benefits.

¶12

The above controversy came up for consideration before Division Bench

¶13

of this Court in Writ-A No.61974 of 2011, Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others. The Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition vide judgment and order dated 1.3.2012 holding that the petitioners therein, which were similarly situated as the petitioners herein, are entitled to pension with effect from the date when they joined the services with the State Government and the State Government will calculate their pension and make payment accordingly, within the specified period.

¶14

The aforesaid decision in Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (supra) was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.44549 of 2015, Dr. Mayank Shekhar Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 4.1.2017 and similar directions as aforesaid, were issued therein. This order of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged before the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave Petition No.33111 of 2017, State of U.P. and others vs. Dr. Mayank Shekhar Upadhyay and the same was dismissed on 9.3.2018.

¶15

In view of the above, the aforesaid decisions in the matter of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava and Dr. Mayank Shekhar Upadhyay(supra) are final and conclusive.

¶16

Thus, following the above decisions, we dispose of this petition holding that the petitioners are entitled to terminal benefits by counting their services from the date of their initial appointment with the State Government and that the respondents shall work out the pension and other dues payable to them accordingly and make the payment within the next two months."

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that the case of the petitioner is covered by the said order. He submits that a decision on the representation of the petitioner shall be taken by the first respondent.

¶18

In regard thereto, without entering into the merit of the case, as well as, rival contentions raised by the respective parties, it is provided that the first respondent, Principal Secretary (Medical Education), Anubhag-2 (Ayurvedic), Government of U.P., Lucknow shall consider and decide the claim/representation of the petitioner, by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably, within three months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition.

¶19

With the aforementioned observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.7.2019 saqlain

Dr. Rakesh Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rakesh Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Lata Vs State of U P and Another

Ravindra Kumar Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Nagendra Singh and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Raj Kishore Bhartiya Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Jang Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others