Allowed

Sughar Singh Rajpoot v. State of U P and 7 Others

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2022WRIA/9281/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's claim to include pre-2004 service for pension computation. Relying on preceding orders that settled the legal position on this issue, the court granted the petitioner's entitlement to pension. The case applied directly to the facts established in prior judgments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to pension under Rules 1964 for total service; Management contribution to be deposited within two months; Arrears with 12% interest payable.

Sughar Singh Rajpoot Vs State of U P and 7… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9281 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Sughar Singh Rajpoot Respondent :- State Of U P And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Present petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 12.5.2021/02.6.2021 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj. By that order, the claim of the petitioner to include the services rendered by him on the post of Assistant Teacher at primary section attached to Sri Shiv Inter College, Tirhua Yakubpur, Auraiya from 01.7.1989 to 31.12.2003 for the purpose of computation of pension has been rejected. In that regard, it may be further noted, from 01.1.2004 to 30.6.2015 the petitioner worked on the post of Assistant Teacher at Janta Inter College Nunaripurwa Sujan, Auraiya. There is no quarrel to the entitlement to pension claimed by the petitioner for the period 01.1.2004 to 30.6.2015. In fact, that pension has been computed and is being regularly paid to the petitioner.

¶7

The claim to include service rendered from 01.7.1989 to 31.12.2003 has been declined on a solitary reason of that entitlement having first arisen to the petitioner under the Government Order dated 28.1.2004 by virtue of clause-2.

¶8

Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, it transpires that the limited dispute brought in this petition is squarely covered by an earlier decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Krishna Prasad Yadav and

¶9

Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015(2)ADJ 663. That petition was allowed in the following terms:-

¶10

"Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and it is accordingly held that the petitioners shall be entitled to pension under the provisions of the Rules 1964. The management contribution required to be deposited may be so made within a period of two months and thereafter the respondents shall proceed to compute the pension of the petitioners taking into account the total length of qualifying service rendered by them and in light of the observations made hereinabove. The pension so computed and becoming liable to be paid to the petitioners from their respective dates of superannuation will be paid within a period of two months from the date of deposit of management contribution and the arrears shall carry interest of 12 per cent per annum.

¶11

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms indicated above."

¶12

Undisputedly, the above decision as been affirmed in intra court appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 228 of 2016 State of U.P. and 6 Others Vs. Shri Krishna Prasad Yadav and 13 Others, decided on 24.5.2017.

¶13

In view of the above, present writ petition is also allowed on the terms similar to Krishna Prasad Yadav and Others (supra).

¶14

Order Date :- 16.11.2022 Faraz

¶15

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.17 10:17:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sughar Singh Rajpoot v. State of U P and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sughar Singh Rajpoot v. State of U P and 7 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

Dr. Shriprakash and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ankur Malik Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Km. Kiran Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Prieeti Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Shashi Singh Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Dr. Pallavi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others