SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(All) 997

SUDHIR AGARWAL, SHASHI KANT
STATE OF U. P. – Appellant
Versus
MAHENDRA CHAUBEY – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
C.B. Yadav and C.S.C. for the Appellants; J.P.N. Singh for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard Chief Standing Counsel for appellant and Sri J.P.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent.

2. This intra-Court Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1952’) has arisen from judgment dated 8.2.2006 passed by learned Single Judge allowing appellant’s Writ Petition No. 47338 of 2000 and directing District Magistrate, Ballia to pay pension and retiral benefits to petitioner-respondent.

3. It is contended by learned Chief Standing Counsel that appellant was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin till 31.10.1981. Thereafter, he was made temporary and since then he continuously worked till the date of retirement on 31.8.1999, hence is not entitled to pension or other retiral benefits under U.P. Collection Amin’ Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1974”) Reliance is placed by learned Chief Standing Counsel on the judgment dated 23.5.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 29292 of 2013 (Ghanshyam Mishra v. State of U.P. and others).

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent contended that appellant was entitled to be treated in continuous service entitled to















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top