Allowed

Dr. Anil Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Agriculture Education and Research, Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2024/2732/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged orders retiring them at age 60, arguing their age limit was 62. The court disposed of the petition in terms of a prior judgment (Dr. Rajendra Prakash Vyas), directing the State to treat petitioners as faculty retiring at 62, ignoring immediate impugned orders pending any Apex Court decision on special leav appeals.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of following the ratio of Dr. Rajendra Prakash Vyas; State directed to treat petitioners as faculty retiring at age 62.

Dr. Anil Kumar Singh and Another Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27859

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2732 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr. Anil Kumar Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Agriculture Education And Research, Lucknow And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar Mishra,Abhishek Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 6 and 4 and Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State.

¶7

A challenge is made to the orders dated 09.01.2024 and 18.01.2024; on the ground that the statute of the University clearly provides the age of superannuation of Teachers/Scientists of the University as 62 years but ignoring the same, the order dated 25.08.2023 has been passed whereas the controversy has been settled, in identically situated employees.

¶8

Learned counsel for the parties admit that the present dispute is covered with the ratio of the judgment and order dated 14.08.2023 passed in WRIT - A No. - 10622 of 2022, Dr. Rajendra Prakash Vyas & others v. State of U.P. and others and the other connected matters , whereby the petitions stood allowed in the following terms:-

¶9

"39. In view of the above and the stand taken by the State in its order dated 04.01.2008, resolution of Board of Management of the University dated 25.02.2002, consequential order of Vice Chancellor and order dated 23.03.2002 (corrected vide order dated 27.09.2023 and of the State Government dated 20.10.2005, all these petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 8.7.2022 retiring the petitioners upon their attaining the age of 60 years are hereby set aside in respect of each of the petitioners.

¶10

40. All petitioners are to be treated as faculty members of the University against teaching positions and hence are held entitled to all service benefits including age of retirement as admissible to teachers of the University.

¶11

41. The petitioners are directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and shall be permitted to continue until their attaining age of 62 years."

¶12

It is undisputed that Special Appeal No.734 of 2023 filed against the aforesaid judgment, has also been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 15.02.2024.

¶13

Learned counsel for opposite parties however submits that Special Leave Petition has been filed against the aforesaid judgments which have yet not been taken up, for consideration.

¶14

In view of aforesaid, the petition is disposed of finally in terms of judgment and order rendered in Dr. Rajendra Prakash Vyas (supra), as the benefit of the same shall also be available to the present petitioners. The decision taken by the State Government shall be abide by the S.L.P. as well as other Special Appeals pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as before this court.

¶15

It is clarified that the decision shall be taken by the opposite parties ignoring the impugned orders dated 09.01.2024 and 18.01.2024.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.4.2024 AKS

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Anil Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Agriculture Education and Research, Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Anil Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Agriculture Education and Research, Lucknow and Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Tandon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Personnel Lko. and 3 Others

Pankaj Kumar Shukla and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. (Secondry Education) and 7 Others

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Deptt.of Culture Lko. and 4 Ors.

Sunbreeze One Apartment Residencial Welfare Association Thru. Secy. Sandeep Kumar Pandey Vs Commissioner Lko. Region Lko. and 3 Others

Ramesh Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others