Daya Rani Tandan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32131

Court No. - 20 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 335 of 2024 Petitioner :- Daya Rani Tandan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi,Kirti Rawat,Vikas Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶5

On the consent of the counsel for the parties, this matter is decided finally at admission stage.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to compute the adhoc services of the petitioner towards the qualifying service for the purpose of payment of pension and initial pension.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed against a short term vacancy and thereafter, against an adhoc vacancy and later on, the financial concurrence was also accorded vide order dated 24.06.1998. He further contended that the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 05.02.2018 w.e.f. 22-03-2016 and the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2019 and after his retirement, the petitioner has received all the retiral dues except, the interest on the amount of G.P.F. and the payment of pensionary benefits while computing his adhoc services.

¶8

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of this court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Surendra Singh and Another, reported in (2023) 3 UPLBC 1881 and has referred paragraph no. 46, which is extracted hereinunder :-

¶9

"46. We may further note that the Rules, 1964 are special provisions applicable to the teachers and non-teaching employees serving in State Aided Education Institutions in the State of U.P. The general provisions of U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021, defining the term 'qualifying service' in U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961,

¶10

w.e.f. 1.4.1961, applicable to 'officers' defined in Rule 3(6) of the Rules, 1961, which means the Government servant having a lien on permanent pensionable post under 'the Government', would not be applicable to the writ petitioners. All the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General to challenge the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 30.9.2022 in Nand Lal(supra), subject matter of challenge in connected special appeals are found without any force."

¶11

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the Division Bench of this court has categorically held that since there is a special provision under the U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employees Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, 1964, and therefore, provisions of U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act,2021,would not prevail over there. Thus, submission is that the respondent-authority may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner so far as the computation of adhoc services for payment of pensionary benefits, are concerned.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on records, it transpires that vide Judgment and order dated 20-04-2023, passed in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Surendra Singh and Another(Supra), the controversy has been settled and it is found that such retired employees are entitled for the benefit of computation of adhoc services under the provisions of Rules, 1964.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 is quashed and the competent authority is hereby directed to accord the benefit of the Judgment and Order dated 20-04-2023 passed in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Surendra Singh and Another(Supra), as stated above, to the present petitioner.

¶15

The decision shall be taken by the competent authority within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶16

The writ petition is allowed accordingly at the admission stage.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.4.2024 Anurag, PS Gr-I

¶18

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

Daya Rani Tandan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Rani Tandan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ganga Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Basic Education) Shiksha Anubhag Lko. and 2 Others

Izhar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Saket Girls Pg College Dahilamau Thru. Its Manager Smt. Kusumlata and Another Vs Commissioner for Employees Compensation/ Assit. Labour Commissioner, Pratapgarh and Another

Harish Chandra Ram Vs District Administrative Committee

Narendra Tewari Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Madhyamik Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Madhyamik Edu. Lko. and Ors.