Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4224 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rakesh Babu Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Yadav,Gyan Prakash Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hemant Kumar
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to file rejoinder affidavit.
The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was appointed as contractual employee on 01.05.1989 and the services of the petitioner were regularized on 02.12.2008 and he retired on 31.03.2020. The petitioner was denied the pension solely on the ground that his services were regularized after 2005 and thus he was not entitled to payment of pension.
The petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ - A No.9577 of 2020, which was disposed off vide order dated 11.11.2020, directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in the light of judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2019 (10) SCC 516.
In terms of the said order, an order dated 08.02.2021 came to be passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of question of review/contempt is within the domain of jurisdiction of the High Court and thus the representation was rejected.
Counsel for the respondent argued that the representation filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure No.9 was sketchy representation, as such, the order dated 08.02.2021 had been passed. He has further relied upon the Act of the State being Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service For Pension And Validation Act, 2021 and placed reliance on Sections 2 and 3 of the said Act to demonstrate that the petitioner is not entitled for addition of services rendered by the petitioner from 01.05.1989 up to 2008 while calculating the qualifying service.
The said argument of counsel for the respondent merits rejection in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Bhanu Pratap Sharma (Special Appeal No. 97 of 2021, judgment dated 9.6.2021), wherein, Section 2 of the Ordinance, which is paramateria to Section 2 of the Act was considered and this Court decided that the services rendered prior to the date of regularization on a substantive post are to be considered for calculating qualifying services.
In view of the said judgment and the issue conclusively decided, the order dated 08.02.2021 is set aside with direction to the respondents to make the payment of pension to the petitioner after adding the services rendered by him from 01.05.1989 up to 2008 as qualifying service. While calculating the qualifying services, the exercise of determination of quantum alone shall now be carried out by the respondent no.2, with all expedition within a period of three months and the petitioner shall be paid retiral dues as quantified within further period of two months.
The writ petition stands allowed in view of the said order.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021/Atul