Disposed

Mukhtar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2020WRIA/3205/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired Lekhpal, sought pension benefits excluding pre-regularisation service. The High Court directed the respondent to decide his claim expeditiously following the precedent in Ram Narayan Ram.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent to decide the claim expeditiously in light of the judgment in Ram Narayan Ram.

Mukhtar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3205 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Mukhtar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Mohan Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

The petitioner had retired from the post of Lekhpal on 31.1.2019. He is not being given the benefit of pension scheme as according to the respondents, he had not completed the requisite period of qualifying service. The admitted fact is that the initial appointment of the petitioner in 1978 was on substantive post of Lekhpal as per the provisions of Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958. However, he was not having training from Lekhpal Training School and was, thus, being treated as untrained Lekhpal. The Board of Revenue issued an order dated 29th March, 2006 whereunder, untrained Lekhpals who had completed ten years of satisfactory service, were entitled to undergo three months training at the Lekhpal Training School.

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that he had completed the training successfully followed by order of regularisation on his service. The grievance is that the services rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularisation is not being counted, but which if counted, would entitle him to the benefit of new pension scheme.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 57515 of 2016 Ram Narayan RamVs State of U.P. And others in support of his contention wherein it was held that the services rendered by a temporary untrained Lekhpal followed by regularisation of service, would be entitle him to the benefit of services rendered prior to his regularisation. It is urged that the respondents be directed to consider his claim in the light of the said judgment.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel states that the claim shall be considered expeditiously.

¶10

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with certified copy of this order before the respondent no.4, who shall in that event, proceed to decide the claim of the petitioner in the light of the

¶11

law laid down by this Court in Ram Narayan Ram (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶12

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.2.2020 SR

Mukhtar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtar Pandey 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Keshav Singh Vs Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Others

Naresh Mittal Died and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Naresh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Balveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others