Heard Km. Vishwa Mohni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer (Homeopathy) on 15.11.1985 on ad hoc basis. The services of the petitioner was regularized on 02.02.1996. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2014 and retired from the post of Medical Officer (Homeopathy). He claims that he been appointed on 15.11.1995 but while calculating the qualifying service for the payment of post retrial dues and pension, his ad hoc services has 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 08.03.2019 and amended order dated 18.04.2019 are hereby set aside.
Thus, following the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (Supra), respondents are directed to pay terminal benefits to the petitioner by counting his services from the date of his initial appointment with the State Government and the respondents shall work out the pension and other dues payable to him accordingly and make the payment within the next two months.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 akverma