Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
The petitioner retired from service while holding the post of Medical Officer. He claims that he was granted appointment on 11.03.1992 on ad-hoc basis. His services was regularized on 16.03.2005. His services has been ignored while calculating the qualifying service for the payment of post retiral dues and pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon certain judgments in the cases of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided vide judgment and order dated 01.03.2012 in Writ-A No.61974 of 2011 and Shanta Rai Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors. decided vide judgment and order dated 25.10.2017 in Writ Petition No.25433 (SS) of 2017. Relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 01.03.2012, passed in Writ-A No. 61974 of 2011 is being quoted below: -
"For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the petitioner has rendered qualifying pensionary service with effect from the date of his joining in the State Government on his option, and which shall be treated as service qualifying for pension and for which under the Government Orders, by which the hospitals were provincialised, the contribution of his pension has been deposited by the Zila Parishad.
The objection, that the contribution of pension, has not been deposited in the relevant account head, is too technical to be accepted. The amount has been credited to the account of the State Government in the Treasury. It is for the Treasury Officer to appropriate the amount in the correct account head. An error in depositing the amount in the wrong account head cannot be treated to have taken away the right of petitioner to pension based upon his continuance in the State Government beginning from 1991.
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.9.2011 is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to pension with effect from 01.2.1991, the date on which he joined in the State Government. The State Government will calculate his pension and issue the pension payment order within two months. The entire arrears of pension shall be paid over to him within a period of three months."
For the grant of said benefit, the petitioner has approached to the respondents requesting to grant the benefit of the aforesaid judgment.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case his representation is decided by the respondent No.1, Principal Secretary, Ayush Anubhag-1, Janpath-2, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, in a time bound manner taking into consideration the law settled by this Court in the judgments referred to above, to which, learned counsel for opposite parties has no objection.
In view of aforesaid, the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation to the respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks from today, annexing therewith a certified copy of this order as well as all other documents in support of his case. In case such a representation is moved, the respondent No.1 shall decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law taking into consideration the law settled by this Court in the judgments referred to above, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.2.2021 Shubhankar (Vivek Chaudhary, J.)