Heard Km. Vishwa Mohni, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the services of the petitioners were regularized on the post of Homeopathic Medical Officer vide orders dated 02.02.1996 with effect from 25.10.1994 and the petitioner no.1 has been superannuated on 31.07.2016 from the post of Homeopathic Medical Officer from State Homeopathic Dispensary, Sadar, Lucknow whereas the petitioner no.2 has been retired on 31.07.2017 from Homeopathic Dispensary, They claim that they have been appointed on 15.11.1995 and 23.11.1986 on ad hoc basis but while calculating the qualifying service for the payment of post retrial dues and pension, their ad hoc services have been ignored.
Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.
After having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.
In view of the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (Supra) the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned order dated 01.05.2019 is hereby set aside.
Thus, following the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (Supra), respondents are directed to pay the terminal benefits to the petitioners by counting their services from the date of their initial appointment with the State Government and the respondents shall work out the pension and other dues payable to them accordingly and make the payment within the next two months.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 akverma