Dismissed

State of U.P. and 3 Others v. Ram Gopal Pandey

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2020SPLAD/744/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal challenged the quashing of a detention order rejecting pension claims due to non-regularization. The single bench had allowed pension including ad hoc services. The apex court precedent explained that ad hoc services count for pension. The court dismissed the appeal upholding the lower order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal dismissed; pension allowed inclusive of ad hoc services.

State of U.P. and 3 Others Vs Ram Gopal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 744 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Respondent :- Ram Gopal Pandey Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Ray Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Khare

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

This appeal is barred by limitation from 279 days, ignoring the same we have looked into the merits of the case.

¶6

This appeal is preferred to question the correctness of the judgment dated 28.11.2017 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ A-No. 26623 of 2014. By the judgment impugned learned Single Bench accepting the petition for writ quashed the communication dated 03.12.2013 issued by the Additional Director (Treasuries and Pension) Varanasi Division, Varanasi and a consequential communication dated 29.01.2014 detaining pension of the petitioner being not satisfying the qualifying service. Learned Single Bench arrived at a conclusion that the services rendered by the respondent / petitioner in ad hoc capacity are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing qualifying service. The issue sought to be agitated in this appeal has already been considered by the Supreme Court in a batch of civil appeals led by Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2019 ( Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. and others ).

¶7

In the case aforesaid the Apex Court arrived at a conclusion that the employees who have not been regularized in spite of rendering services for quite a long span and have been superannuated from service can't be denied the benefit of pension. The Court read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and held that the services rendered even in the work charged cadre are required to be treated as a part of qualifying service for grant of pension under the Rules of 1961.

¶8

The ad hoc as well as the temporary appointees who served the State for a pretty long time and subsequently regularized like the petitioner can't be placed at a lower pedestal vis-a-vis in the work charged employees. In such circumstance we don't find

¶9

any error with the order passed by learned Single Bench allowing pension to the petitioner by computing the qualifying service inclusive to the services rendered in the ad hoc capacity.

¶10

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

¶11

Order Date :- 24.2.2020 AS Rathor

¶12

(Samit Gopal,J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

State of U.P. and 3 Others v. Ram Gopal Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. and 3 Others v. Ram Gopal Pandey

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

surendra kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Indrajeet Puri Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Control of Pollution and Another

Mange Ram Chaudhari Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

State of U.P. Vs the C/M Sri Dravi Nath Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another

Ram Naresh Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Dev Sharma Vs Director of Technical Education and 2 Others