Dr. Shiv Shankar Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

Dr. Shiv Shankar Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the petitioner's claim by a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Professor in a Homeopathy Medical College, is entitled to a direction extending his age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years with consequential benefits, at parity with the extension granted to teaching staff of Allopathic Medical Colleges.

Court's answer

Considering the submissions of both counsel and the record, and on consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at admission stage, directing the Competent Authority to consider and decide the petitioner's claim by a reasoned and speaking order within three months from production of certified copy of the order, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and to communicate the decision to him. The Court did not itself adjudicate the entitlement to extension of superannuation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Dr. Shiv Shankar Pal, Professor in a Government Homeopathy Medical College (appointed Lecturer on 16.09.2005; later promoted as Reader and selected as Professor), sought a direction to extend his age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years with consequential benefits, at parity with teaching staff of Allopathic Medical Colleges whose retirement age was extended by Government Order dated 06.02.2015. Counsel relied on the decision in Dr. Surendra Pratap Yadav (Writ-A No. 30915 of 2021, dated 27 January 2023) and on this Court's disposal of Writ-A No. 12848 of 2023 (Dr. Ram Sahayi vs. State of U.P. and another), which the learned standing counsel did not dispute. On consent of counsel, Donadi Ramesh, J. disposed of the petition at admission stage, directing the Competent Authority to consider and decide the petitioner's claim by a reasoned and speaking order within three months of production of certified copy of the order, after giving full opportunity of hearing, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:200834

Court No. - 44

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17664 of 2023

Petitioner :- Dr. Shiv Shankar Pal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankur Vishwakarma,Kapoor Chandra Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

The writ petition is filed for a direction to respondent Authorities to extend the age of superannuation of the petitioner who is Professor in the Homeopathy Medical College from 60 year to 65 year with all the consequential benefits in view of the extension done for such Medical Teachers in the Allopathic Department.

Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 16.09.2005, in Practice of Medicine in Rajkiya Dr. Brij Kishore Homeopathy Medical College and Hospital Faizabad. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader and he was posted in Rajkiya National Homeopathic Medical College Faizabad in the department of Organon and after selected for the post as Professor, accordingly, he is discharging with due satisfaction to the respondents. Things to thus, the State has issued Government Order on 06.02.2015, whereby, age of retirement of the teaching staff of Medical College of Allopathic Department was extended from 60 years to 65 years but the petitioner is a Professor in Homeopathic. He has made request for extension of the age of superannuation from 60 year to 65 year as was done to the Teaching Staff of Allopathic Medical College. Hence, petitioner made several representations and request to the State Government for extension of age of retirement like teaching staff of Allopathic Department.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a decision was taken in the case of Dr. Surendra Pratap Yadav vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Ayush Lucknow and another in Writ-A No. 30915 of 2021, dated 27 January 2023. Hence, he has also requested to consider the representation made by the petitioner as per observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. Further, he has brought to the notice of the Court that in identical situation this Court has disposed of the writ petition

bearing Writ-A No. 12848 of 2023 (Dr. Ram Sahayi vs. State of U.P. and another) and requested to pass the similar order.

Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents does not dispute the aforesaid observations made while disposing of Writ-A No. 12848 of 2023 (Dr. Ram Sahayi vs. State of U.P. and another).

Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and perusal of the record, on consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is disposed of at admission stage directing the Competent Authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the instant order after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner.

Order Date :- 17.10.2023 Mukesh Kr.

(Donadi Ramesh,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad