Allowed

Jai Prakash Yadav and 10 Others v. State of U P and 6 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2020WRIA/10471/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding pension and service benefits, the Court followed the settled precedent of Writ-A No. 24910 of 2006. It allowed the petitioners' claim to count their initial training period towards service for granting promotional pay scales upon completion of 14 years of satisfactory service.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioners' claim in light of Writ-A No. 24910 of 2006 within two months.

Jai Prakash Yadav and 10 Others Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10471 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Yadav And 10 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaswant Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jaswant Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

The petitioners, at different serial numbers in this petition, were appointed as constables at different dates and thereafter, were sent for training with provincial arms constabulary. Thereafter they have been transferred as driver in civil police and they have also received promotional pay-scales on different dates on completion of 14 years of satisfactory service.

¶7

The question now is for counting the period of initial training towards their services to make them pensionable as well.

¶8

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the controversy involved in the present writ petition qua consideration of training period towards service is no more res integra as it has come to be settled in Writ- A No.-24910 of 2006 vide judgment and order dated 8th April, 2009. The concluding paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:-

¶9

"A perusal of the aforesaid circular, therefore, clearly shows that since fixed pay is sanctioned to the recruits for the training period, they will be considered to have been appointed in service from the date they undergo training. The training period is also considered as service and as such it will be counted for pension after their confirmation against the substantive and permanent post. Though this has been stated in the context of pension but as it mentions that the recruits will be considered to have been appointed in the service from the date they undergo training and this training period should also be considered as service period, there is no logical reason as to why the said period spent in training should not be counted for the purposes of granting other benefits.

¶10

It needs to be mentioned that Clause (ii) of the aforesaid circular only prohibits grant of increment during the training period since during this period they draw a fixed pay but it has also been mentioned that they will draw their usual increments when they are absorbed as Constable in the pay scale. The benefit of training period for calculating the service period for grant of promotional pay scale cannot be denied only because this particular aspect has not been dealt with in the aforesaid circular dated 8th November, 1965 as it is in the intention behind the issuance of the

¶11

circular that has to be seen.

¶12

The contention of the learned Standing Counsel, therefore, that the counting of the training period should be restricted for pension purposes, cannot be accepted and nor is the reason assigned in the order dated 11th May, 2006 on the basis of Clause (ii) of the circular for not counting the training period a valid reason.

¶13

The note dated 28th March, 2007 sent by the Financial Controller, U.P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad mentions that the training period should be counted only for the purposes of pension and post retirement benefits but not for any benefits during the service period. This direction contained in the aforesaid note is contrary to the earlier circular dated 8th November, 1965 which provides that the recruits should be treated to have been appointed in the service from the date they undergo training and this period should also be considered as period spent in service.

¶14

Thus, for the reasons stated above, the respondents are not justified in not counting the period spent in training for the purposes of calculating 24 years of service for grant of promotional pay scale to the petitioners. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to count the training period of the petitioners for the purposes of granting second promotional pay scale."

¶15

At the bar it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid judgment has not been appealed against and it still holds the field.

¶16

It is further argued that such judgment has been repeatedly followed in a number of the writ petitions and the latest being one Writ-A No.- 10547 of 2019 disposed of vide order dated 16th July, 2019.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the above legal and factual position and submits that this petition can be disposed of in terms of order quoted hereinabove.

¶18

In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the competent authority, namely, respondent No.2, to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners in the light of the judgment and order rendered in Writ-A No.- 24910 of 2006 within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶19

The copy of the order available on official website of this Court shall be treated to be genuine one, however, as and when the certified copy of the order is issued, the same shall also be submitted before the competent authority.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.12.2020 Atmesh

Jai Prakash Yadav and 10 Others v. State of U P and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Yadav and 10 Others v. State of U P and 6 Others

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 Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amar Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Neeraj Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Tejveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ramdeen Yadav Vs Board of Revenue and Another

Soni Devi Vs Board of Revenue, Allahabad and 2 Others