Allowed

Hari Govind Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Urban Development) Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2023/2288/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a non-regularization order and the exclusion of ad hoc service for pensionary benefits. The court held that ad hoc services must be counted as qualifying service under the applicable rules, directing payment of pension, gratuity, and interest with retrospective effect from the date junior employees were regularized.

What did the court decide?

Payment of pension and gratuity with consequential benefits from 26.8.2003; interest at 8% from 30.4.2023.

Hari Govind Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34018

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2288 of 2023 Petitioner :- Hari Govind Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Urban Development) Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Tiwari,Rishabh Chauhan,Satya Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:

¶7

"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 25.1.2023 issued by respondent no. 1 (duly contained as Annexure No. 1 to the present writ petition.

¶8

ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 26.8.2003 i.e. date from which the persons junior to the petitioner have been regularized with all consequential benefits vide order dated 12.11.2021 passed by respondent no. 1"

¶9

The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 7.3.1995 and his services were regularized on 23.11.2009 as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in Nagar Palika Parishad, Gorakhpur under the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services.

¶10

It is stated that during the pendency of the case, the petitioner retired on 30.4.2023 after attaining the age of superannuation as such he is confining his prayer for payment of post-retiral dues with consequential benefits after confirmation of his adhoc/temporary service from a date which the persons junior to the petitioners were given the benefit i.e. 26.8.2003..

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the Rules applicable being Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Services Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981, qualifying service has been clearly defined under Rule (X) which made it very clear

¶12

that even the services rendered as ad hoc would be counted for the purposes of calculating the qualifying services as such the stand taken by the respondent is not justified. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shashi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., wherein this Court specifically considered the issue of qualifying services as referred to in the erstwhile U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, which is paramateria to the Rule 2 (X) of 2001 Rules and held that the ad hoc services shall also be counted while calculating qualifying services for pensionery benefit along with said judgment and said rules.

¶13

He further places reliance on record and argues that the persons who are junior to the petitioner were given the benefit of counting the services with effect from 26.8.2003 and no reasons have been recorded as to why the benefit of regularisation or the counting of services is not done in the case of the petitioner from 26.8.2003, the date on which the persons junior to the petitioner were regularized with all consequential benefits.

¶14

I have no hesitation holding that the stand of the respondent in not counting the services of the petitioner from 26.8.2003 (the date when persons junior to the petitioner were regularized) up to 23.11.2009 (the date of regularization) is bad in law and contrary to the Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and allowed and the mandamus is issued to the respondents to compute and pay pension and gratuity to the petitioner within four months from today. The petitioner shall also entitle to interest at the rate of 8% from 30.4.2023 up to payment/realisation.

¶15

The petition stands allowed in terms of the said order.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.5.2023 Mohit Singh/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hari Govind Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Urban Development) Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Govind Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Urban Development) Lko. and Another

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

Mahesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu. Lukcnow and Ors.

Ram Autar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu. Lucknow and Ors.

Shiv Raj Vs the State of U.P Thru. the Prin. Secy. Basic Education and Ors.

Lal Chandra Mishra Vs State of U.P Thru Prin Secy Panchayati Raj Lucknow and Ors.

Paras Nath Vs M.D. (Rural) U.P. Jal Nigam Lko. and 2 Others

Dilip Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Education Lko. and Another