Allowed

Ram Ujagir Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2020WRIA/19942/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a petition filed by a retired Ayurved Doctor seeking to include his ad hoc service period in pension calculations, relying on the court's own recent precedents granting similar relief to similarly situated officials.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to calculate and pay pension and other dues by counting the petitioner's services from the date of initial appointment and make payment wi

Ram Ujagir Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19942 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Ujagir Upadhyay Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Budhwar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that he retired from service as an Ayurved Doctor in the employment of the Government of U.P. in the Department of Ayush. The petitioner rendered ad hoc services from 27.11.1998 to 16.03.2005 before he was regularized. The respondents while determining his entitlement to pension, gratuity and other post retiral benefits have excluded the period of his ad hoc services from consideration.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance upon the judgement dated 3.12.2020 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 10934 of 2020 (Naresh Kumar Vs State of UP and Another) to contend that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgement and the similarly treatment may also be extended to the petitioner. The order dated 3.12.2020 reads as under:-

¶7

" At the very outset, Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for petitioner states that present matter is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 23.01.2019 passed in Writ-A No.22833 of 2018 (Dr. Ravindra Kumar and 8 others vs. State of U.P. and others) and other connected writ petitions, to which learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection. The order dated 23.01.2019 reads as follow:-

¶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 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

¶13

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

Accordingly, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the judgement passed in Writ-A No.22833 of 2018 (Dr. Ravindra Kumar and 8 others vs. State of U.P. and others). "

¶18

The Court has occasion to peruse the order dated3.12.2020 passed in Writ A No. 10934 of 2020 (Naresh Kumar Vs State of UP and Another), and finds that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

¶19

Accordingly, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the judgement passed in Writ A No. 10934 of 2020 (Naresh Kumar Vs State of UP and Another).

¶20

Order Date :- 14.12.2020 RavindraKSingh

Ram Ujagir Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ujagir Upadhyay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gyan Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pooran Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Asha Devi Vs Additional Director Tresury and Pension and 3 Others

Smt. Rukmani Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mahesh Prasad Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others