Allowed

Sadrul Hasan v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Ayush, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2024/2184/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench allowed a writ petition denying pension to Sadrul Hasan. The court held that pre-regularization service must be included in qualifying service computation under Section 2 of the Validation Act, 2021, relying on prior judgments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to compute period w.e.f. 14.01.1992 up to 08.01.2014 as qualifying service for pension and other retirement dues.

Sadrul Hasan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23800

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2184 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sadrul Hasan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Ayush, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Verma,Praveen Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of the pension merely on the ground that the petitioner did not have the necessary qualifying service, which has been calculated based upon the Validation Act, 2021, placing reliance on Section 2 of the said Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 06.08.2021 passed in Writ A No. 9030 of 2021 (Awadhesh Kumar Singh Vs. Sate of U.P. and others).

¶10

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad hoc basis vide order dated 14.01.1992 and the services of the petitioner stood regularized vide order dated 08.01.2014 w.e.f. 21.12.2001. The claim of the petitioner is that the period of 14.01.1992 up to 21.12.2001 was not considered while computing the qualifying service in the light of Section 2 of the Validation Act, 2021.

¶11

The said question is no more res integra and is squarely considered by Special Appeal Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 1003 of 2020, decided on 4.2.2021 as well as Special Appeal No. 97 of 2021 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Bhanu Pratap Sharma), decided on 9.6.2021, wherein this Court while dealing with the similar issues, held that the services of the appellant rendered prior to his regularization would entitle benefit to the appellant even in terms of Section 2 of the said Validation Act, 2021, the special appeals were allowed.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel is unable to distinguish the judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

Following the said two judgments and considering the fact that the impugned order records the only reason for counting the services of the petitioner from 14.01.1992 up

¶14

to 08.01.2014 being the mandate of Section 2 of the said Validation Act, 2021, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to compute the period w.e.f. 14.01.1992 up to 08.01.2014 as qualifying service for calculating the total qualifying service of the petitioner and the petitioner shall be entitled to payment of pension and other retiral dues on the basis of the said total qualifying services rendered by the petitioner.

¶16

The writ petition is allowed in terms of the said order.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.3.2024 Nitesh

¶18

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

Sadrul Hasan v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Ayush, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadrul Hasan v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Ayush, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Lalit Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Parashuram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 5 Others

Jagannath Prasad Shukla Vs Union of India, Thru. Secy., Ministry of Railway Central Secrt., New Delhi and 2 Others

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Horticulture ,Civil Sectt. U.P. Lucknow and Others

Suvercha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 2 Others