Petitioner claimed ad hoc services were not considered for pension. Court disposed petition, granting liberty to file application with copy of judgment, directing respondent to decide within three months.
Petition disposed with liberty to file application; respondent to decide within three months on receipt.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8903 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ravindra Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratap Vikram Singh,Chhaya Gupta,Sujeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the services rendered by the petitioner as an ad hoc prior to his regularization are not being taken into consideration while determining qualifying services for the purposes of payment of pension and retiral benefits.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the person similarly situated as the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (A) No. 22932 of 2018 (Dr. Prabha Kant Upadhyay Vs. State of UP and 3 others) and the same stood allowed vide order dated 7.8.2019 and the special appeal against the said judgment also stood dismissed vide order dated 30.9.2020.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has moved an application, which is pending consideration before the Respondent No. 3.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed off with liberty to file an application along with a copy of
the judgments. In case any such application is filed, the Respondent No. 3 shall take decision in the light of the said judgments as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the same.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of the High Court shall be treated to be original.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021 vinay
2 issues framed by the court
Whether services rendered as an ad hoc employee prior to regularization should be taken into account for pension benefits.
Whether pending relief regarding qualifying services should be disposed of or retained in application form.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Prabha Kant Upadhyay Vs. State of UP and 3 othersReferred¶7
Dr. Prabha Kant Upadhyay Vs. State of UP and 3 others
Ravindra Pandey
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
