Allowed

Abdul Khalik v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2021WRIA/8193/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging denial of pension benefits. It held that services rendered before regularization must be counted towards qualifying service, setting aside the lower order. The respondent was directed to expeditiously compute and pay pension and retiral dues within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondents directed to compute and pay pension and retiral dues treating pre-regularization services as qualifying within three months.

Abdul Khalik Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8193 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Abdul Khalik Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28th December, 2020, whereby the petitioner has been denied the benefit of pension on account of the petitioner not rendered the qualifying service in terms of the Rules applicable for payment of pension.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 16.4.1987 and continued to work since then, however, the services of the petitioner stood regularized w.e.f. 21st July, 2010. The petitioner thereafter was retired on 31.12.2019 and raised a claim for payment of pension and retiral dues.

¶8

As the petitioner was not being paid the pension, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7171 of 2020 (Abdul Khalik Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed off on 10.9.2020, directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation. In terms of the said order, the representation has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 28th December, 2020.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as it has counted the services of the petitioner from 21.7.2010 (the date of

¶10

regularization) without including the services rendered by the petitioner prior to regularization. He argues that this question has been well settled by this Court in Writ-A No. 9684 of 2012 (Ganesh Ram and Another Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as in Writ-A No. 10116 of 2018 (Suresh Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others) .

¶11

The issue that the services rendered prior to regularization would be counted in qualifying service is no more in issue now, once a decision has been rendered by this Court.

¶12

In view of the specific decision by this Court that the qualifying service would include the service rendered prior to regularization also, the order dated 28th December, 2020 is legally unsustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. The respondents are directed to compute the pension and the other benefits, to which the petitioner is entitled treating his services rendered prior to date of regularization also as qualifying service and the petitioner shall be paid the retiral dues and the pension, to which the petitioner may be found to be entitled, as expeditiously as possible. The said exercise shall be carried out expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of a copy of this order before the respondent no. 2. The petitioner shall also be entitled to apply for interest, which question shall be decided by the District Magistrate concerned.

¶13

The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the said order.

¶14

Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated/accepted as certified copy of this order.

¶15

Order Date :- 29.7.2021 S. Rahman

Abdul Khalik v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Khalik 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surya Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Babu Lal Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Ram Bahadur and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anita Yadav (Devi) Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Jamuna Prasad Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kiran Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another