Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14886 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ram Ujagir Upadhyay
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Gautam,Vikas Budhwar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sanding Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has assailed the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by respondent no.1- Principal Secretary (Medical Education), Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits has been rejected on the ground that the services rendered as ad-hoc employee are not liable to be counted with regular services for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits.
Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court passed in Writ-A No.9396 of 2021 (Dr. Sushma Chandel Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others).
It is further contended that this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.1003 of 2020, decided on 04.02.2021 as well as Special Appeal No.97 of 2021 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Bhanu Patap Sharma) decided on 09.06.2021 has held that the services of the appellant rendered prior to his regularization would entitle the benefit of the said services to the appellant even in terms of Section 2 of the said Ordinance No.19 of 2020, the appeals were allowed. He submits that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis on 27.11.1998 and services of the petitioner stood regularized w.e.f. 16.03.2005, therefore, the services of the petitioner for the period prior to the date of regularization are to be counted for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits.
This Court on 08.11.2021 passed the following order:-
"It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by impugned order dated 14.07.2021, service rendered as adhoc by the petitioner has been denied to be included with the regular service for the purposes of pensionery benefit.
He submits that the controversy in hand has been concluded by the judgement of this Court in the case of Dr. Sushma Chandel Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ A No. 9396 of 2021 and therefore, impugned order is not sustainable.
Sri Brijesh Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks time to seek instruction in the matter and apprise the Court as to whether controversy in hand has been concluded by the judgement of this Court in the case of Dr. Sushma Chandel (supra).
Put up as fresh on 20.12.2021."
Learned Standing Counsel states that no instructions have been received.
As the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgement passed in Writ-A No.9396 of 2021 (Dr. Sushma Chandel Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), therefore, this court is not inclined to grant any further time to seek instructions.
From perusal of the records, it appears that the impugned order records the only reason for non-counting the services of the petitioner from 27.11.1998 up to 16.03.2005, being against the mandate of Section 2 of the said Ordinance No.19 of 2020, since the controversy in hand is covered by the judgement Dr. Sushma Chandel (supra), therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 14.07.2021 passed by respondent no.1-Principal Secretary (Medical Education), Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, is set aside with direction to the respondents to compute the period w.e.f. 27.11.1998 upto 16.03.2005 as qualifying service for calculating the total qualifying service of the petitioner and the petitioner shall be entitled to payment of pension and other retiral dues on the basis of services rendered by him.
The writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 NS