Allowed

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Edu. and Skill Deve. Govt. U.P. Lko. and Another v. Ranjit Kumar Chakravarti

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2023/61/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Appeal against a Single Judge's order regarding pensionary benefits for an ad hoc instructor was allowed. The High Court found the lower court erred in not granting the State an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit, particularly concerning the applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order dated 18.08.2022 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Hon'ble Single Judge to decide afresh after directing the Appellants/State to file a counter affidavit wit

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

[1]

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 61 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Edu. And Skill Deve. Govt. U.P. Lko. And Another Respondent :- Ranjit Kumar Chakravarti Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Chandola,Abhishek Dwivedi

¶6

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

C.M. Application No. 1 of 2023 : Application for Condonation of Delay.

¶8

(1) This intra Court appeal is beyond 141 days.

¶9

(2) Heard Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, the learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Vivek Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for appellants/State and Shri Pradeep Chandola and Shri Abhishek Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

¶10

(3) The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of aforesaid application for condonation of delay is sufficient. The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned .

¶11

Order on Memo of the Appeal

¶12

(4) This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is filed by the State and its authorities, challenging the judgment and order dated 18.08.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 4793 of 2022 : Ranjit Kumar

¶13

[2]

¶14

Chakravarti Vs. State of U.P. and another, whereby the Hon’ble Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition with the following directives :-

¶15

“Accordingly,the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before opposite party no.2 in this regard within two weeks from today and in case such a representation is moved by the petitioner regarding post retiral dues before opposite party no.2 within two weeks from today the opposite party no.2 shall consider and decide the same expeditiously taking into account the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.4319 (SS) of 2019 (Ashok Kumar Dixit vs. State of U.P.) in accordance with law and communicate its decision to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

¶16

(5) Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for appellants/State has submitted that earlier the writ petitioner/respondent has filed Writ-A No. 44544 of 2017, seeking relief to regularize him and the same is still pending. During pendency of Writ-A No. 44544 of 2017, the writ petitioner/respondent has filed Writ-A No. 4793 of 2022, which was disposed by the Hon’ble Single Judge by means of the impugned order on the first date of hearing without affording any opportunity to the appellants/State to file counter affidavit. He submits that judgment in Writ Petition No.4319 (SS) of 2019 (Ashok Kumar Dixit vs. State of U.P.) was passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge prior to enactment of

¶17

[3]

¶18

the U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 and further the writ petitioner has not been regularized, therefore, in view of U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021, the writ petitioner is not entitled to get pensionery benefits as it is only the services rendered after being substantively appointed against a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the State Government for the post which can be counted for determining the qualifying service for pension. These aspects of the matter has not been appreciated by the Hon’ble Single Judge while issuing direction to consider and decide the representation of the writ petitioner/respondent taking into account the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.4319 (SS) of 2019 ( Ashok Kumar Dixit vs. State of U.P. ).

¶19

(6) Per contra, Shri Pradeep Chandola and Shri Abhishek Dwivedi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner have submitted that the appointment of the husband of the writ petitioner/respondent was made on ad hoc basis against the permanent post. A selection committee was constituted for regularization of the ad hoc Instructor in the year 1983. The Selection Committee had considered the candidature of 65 ad hoc Instructor for regularization, however, 54 ad hoc Instructors were regularized and 11 ad hoc Instructors including the respondent/writ petitioner were not regularized. He submits that Hon’ble Single Judge, after

¶20

[4]

¶21

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly disposed of the writ petition by means of the impugned order.

¶22

(7) We have examined the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment as well as material brought on record.

¶23

(8) It is an undisputed fact that the writ petitioner/ respondent was appointed as Instructor on ad hoc basis. His services were not regularized till attaining the age of superannuation, however, he was granted the benefit of promotional pay-scale from time to time.

¶24

(9) It appears that no opportunity to the appellants was provided to the appellants to file counter affidavit and in the absence of the counter affidavit, the impugned order has been passed directing the appellants to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner taking into account the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.4319 (SS) of 2019 ( Ashok Kumar Dixit vs. State of U.P. ) and further whether the petitioner is entitled for postretiral dues in the light of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021) , has not been dealt with by Hon’ble Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would suffice by remitting the matter to the Hon’ble Single Judge for fresh consideration after

¶25

[5]

¶26

providing opportunity to the appellants/State to file counter affidavit.

¶27

(10) For the reasons aforesaid, the instant intra Court appeal is allowed . The impugned judgment and order dated 18.08.2022 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ-A No. 4793 of 2022 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted to Hon’ble Single Judge to decide it afresh, expeditiously. Appellants/State is directed to file counter affidavit in Writ-A No. 4793 of 2022 within four weeks from today.

¶28

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶29

Order Date :- 10.2.2023 Ajit/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- AJIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Edu. and Skill Deve. Govt. U.P. Lko. and Another v. Ranjit Kumar Chakravarti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Edu. and Skill Deve. Govt. U.P. Lko. and Another v. Ranjit Kumar Chakravarti

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

Kaptan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief Secy P.W.D. and Anr.

Shankar Lal Meena Vs Union of India Thru. Director General,Research Development and Standard Organization and 4 Ors.

Constable Civil Police Virendra Kumar Vs U.P. Public Secrvice Tribunal Lko. and Others

Heera Lal and Others Vs D.M. , Bahraich and Others

Naresh Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Edu. and Skill Deve. Govt. U.P. Lko. and Another Vs Suresh Chandra Shukla