Arun Kumar Mehta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4, Lucknow and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31264

Court No. - 3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7439 of 2024

Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Mehta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Nagar Vikas Anubhag-4, Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Saxena,Gaurav Upadhyay,Manish Misra,Mridula Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma,Vishal Kumar Upadhyay

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

In Re:- C.M.A. No. 02 of 2025

¶7

This is an application for disposal of the writ petition.

¶8

The application is allowed.

¶9

Order on Writ

¶10

Heard Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶11

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶12

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the opposite party No.2 (Annexure No.1).

¶13

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to regularize the service of the petitioner from 26.08.2003 like similarly situated persons and accordingly ensure the payment of regular pension to the petitioner.

¶14

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to count the ad-hoc services of the petitioner from 07.03.1995 for qualifying service for the purpose of payment of pension and other retiral dues at par with similarly situated persons in accordance with Rule 21-A of U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service (21st Amendment) Rules, 2003.

¶15

(iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the arrear of pension to the petitioner along with admissible rate of interest."

¶16

Attention has been drawn towards the judgment and order dated 08.01.2024 passed by this Court in writ petition bearing Writ-A No.7384 of 2023; Suresh Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. & others (Annexure No.26) by submitting that the present writ petition is identical and similar to the issue which has been decided by this Court by means of the aforesaid judgment passed in the case in re: Suresh Kumar Sharma (supra) . Therefore, the benefit of the aforesaid judgment may be extended to the present petitioner.

¶17

Notably, identical special appeals pending before this Court at Allahabad have been decided vide judgment and order dated 06.05.2025 passed in leading Special Appeal No.607 of 2024; State of U.P. and others vs. Chandra Mohan Yadav. Paras-23, 24 & 25 of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 06.05.2025 read as under:-

¶18

"23. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are, therefore, of the considered view that claim of all the writ petitioners for regularisation was required to be considered pursuant to Rule 21-A(1) introduced on 10.04.2003. Any delay occasioned by the State in consideration of their claim for regularisation cannot be a ground to deny benefit of pension to the writ petitioners. On 10.04.2003, Old Pension Scheme was applicable. Entitlement of respondents/writ petitioners for regularisation is also undisputed. Following the reasoning adopted by the coordinate Division Benches in the aforesaid two matters which have attained finality with dismissal of Special Leave Petitions and Review Petitions, we are inclined to hold that all the writ petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme treating their date of entry into service as 10.4.2003. The appellant-State shall calculate the pension of the respondents/writ petitioners treating their substantive appointment to have been made on 10.4.2003.

¶19

24. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge for granting pension from 1995, however, cannot be sustained and stands modified accordingly. The pensionery benefits in terms of above determination would be extended to all the writ petitioners within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. Some of the persons who are already getting pensions would be entitled to re-determination of their pension in terms of the above direction. However, no recovery would be made from them.

¶20

25. In view of the above, these appeals are disposed of."

¶21

Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the pending special appeal before this Court at Lucknow may also be decided in the light of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 06.05.2025.

¶22

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the benefit of the judgment and order dated 08.01.2024 may be provided to the present petitioner in the same manner the

¶23

benefit has been provided to the identically placed employee Suresh Kumar Sharma (supra).

¶24

Considering the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 08.01.2024 passed in the case in re: Suresh Kumar Sharma (supra) and while passing the order in favour of the petitioner, this much may be indicated that the benefit so given to the present petitioner would be subject to final outcome of the Special Appeal (Defective) No.275 of 2024.

¶25

Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Anurag

¶26

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

Arun Kumar Mehta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4, Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Mehta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4, Lucknow and 2 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

Baikunth Nath Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko and 4 Others

Durga Sharan Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Harinarayan and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 7 Others

Arun Kumar Mehta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4, Lucknow and 2 Others

Nanhu vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Tirth vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko.