Back
PRAKASH SINGH
Ram Ji Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. Thru. Secy. (Secondary Education ) Lko. – Respondent
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
Vested rights to pension cannot be revoked by subsequent amendments or government orders unless explicitly stated to have retrospective effect; the age of superannuation is determined by existing reg....
Accrued rights to pension cannot be retrospectively revoked, and continuous ad-hoc service qualifies for pension benefits under applicable rules.
Continuous ad-hoc service followed by regularization counts towards qualifying service for pension, and vested rights cannot be retrospectively revoked.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that teachers at State-aided educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh are governed by the Applicable Rules and not the Government Employees Rules.....
The court ruled that the entire service of the petitioner from 1979 to 2015 must be considered for pension calculation, subject to the deposit of management contributions, as earlier cut-off dates we....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal interpretation of pension provisions and the recognition of pension as a continuous relief/right for the employee, which sho....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a retrospective promotion without financial benefit does not necessarily violate the General Financial Rule, 1963, and Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rul....
Pension scheme - Deduction of monthly salary - since the Petitioner No. 1 had been appointed prior to 1st November, 2005 and occupied a part time fully aided post i.e. receiving 100% grant-in-aid fro....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the New Pension Scheme to government employees who joined the service after 01.04.2005, based on the relevant rules and regula....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
