JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Vivek Shukla and Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State.

2. Notice to the opposite party no. 5 is hereby dispensed with.

3. Under challenge is the order dated 20th January 2024 passed by the opposite party no. 3, i.e., Deputy Director, Secondary Education, IXth Region, Ayodhya, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension has been rejected on the premises that by vide of Government order dated 12th December 2023, the pension scheme is amended with retrospective effect.

4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Institution in question, on the post of Assistant Teacher on ad-hoc basis on 13th March 1997 and in the event, the salary was not being paid to him, he filed a writ petition on 7th May 1999, wherein, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, on 16.11.1999, the financial concurrence was accorded with respect to the payment of salary by the DIOS concerned. He submits that the wr