Jai Prakash vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2038

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2038

VIVEK CHAUDHARY
Jai Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Pradip Kumar Srivastava.
For the Respondent: Jai Prakash Gupta.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 9.7.2020 whereby the respondent authority has refused to grant him pension and other benefits on retirement which he claim to be entitled. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as daily wage employee on 1.1.1989. He continued to serve on Class IV Post as Clerk. He was treated as regular employee and was regularized on 3.5.2011 and thereafter, he retired on 31.1.2020.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is entitled for pension under U.P. Nagarpalika Non-Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Regulation, 1984 (Rules of 1984). Reference is made to Rule 2(m), which reads as follows:

“(m) “Qualifying service” means the service which qualified for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Civil Service Regulations, as amended from time to time, excepting the following:

(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment under the Municipal Board concerned.

(ii) periods of service in a work-charged establishment.

(iii) periods of service in a post paid from contigencies.

Provid