Remanded

Om Veer Singh and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2020WRIA/9154/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners working in the P.W.D. claimed pension benefits for work charge services. The Court held that mixed facts and law require adjudication by the competent authority and remitted the matter for processing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Remitted to the competent authority (Superintending Engineer, Saharanpur) to decide the petitioners' representation within three months.

Om Veer Singh and 14 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9154 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Om Veer Singh And 14 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The petitioners were working in the Work Charge Establishment in the Public Works Department (P.W.D.). They were regularized in service on various dates. The petitioners claim that the services rendered in the work charge establishment should be counted towards qualifying services for pension in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Habib Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported at 2018 (1) SLR 724 (5) as well as Prem Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported at (2019) 10 SCC 516 .

¶6

Sri Prabhakar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the State Government has lately passed an ordinance which will also entitle the petitioners for the benefit of services rendered under the work charge establishment for the purposes of pensionary benefits. He relies on the ordinance of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Services for Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020. The petitioners have made representations in this regard.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents submits that the applicability of the judgements of the

¶8

Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the ordinance are mixed facts and law which have to be considered in the first instance by the competent authority.

¶9

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court.

¶10

In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is remitted to the respondent No.3-Superintending Engineer, Saharanpur Circle, Public Works Department, Saharanpur (In case the respondent No.3 is not the competent authority, he shall forthwith transmit the records of the case to the competent authority, who shall be bound by the following directions).

¶11

I. The petitioners shall make fresh representations to the respondent No.3-Superintending Engineer, Saharanpur Circle, Public Works Department, Saharanpur/competent authority along with all supporting documents within a period of one month. II. The respondent No.3-Superintending Engineer, Saharanpur Circle, Public Works Department, Saharanpur/ competent authority shall decide the representation of the petitioners for counting the services rendered in the work charge establishment towards qualifying service for pension within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded

¶12

from the official website of the High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned and the Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 3.11.2020 Ashish Tripathi

Om Veer Singh and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Veer Singh and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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

Pradyuman Tiwari and 2 Ors. Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Triveni Prasad Upadhyay Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Mrityunjay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijai Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others