Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajeev Misra, J.
Jaya Malik – Appellant
Versus
State Of U P And 3 Others – Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 7237 of 2022
Pension - Service Qualification - U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021, U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 - The court interpreted the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 regarding qualifying service for pension, concluding that prior adhoc service should be included in the calculation of qualifying service for pension benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order denying pension benefits based on the date of regularization of her service, arguing that her entire service, including adhoc periods, should count towards qualifying service as per U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interpretation of qualifying service under U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 allows for the inclusion of prior adhoc service in pension calculations, aligning with previous judgments that supported this view.
Issues: Whether the services rendered by the petitioner prior to regularization should be counted for pension eligibility under U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of 'qualifying service' under U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 permits the inclusion of prior adhoc service, thus supporting the petitioner's claim for pension benefits.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order denying pension benefits and directed the respondents to recalculate the qualifying service including prior adhoc service.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.
1. Heard Mr. Pratik Kumar Shrma, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Mr. B.N. Mishra, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
2. The issue involved in the present writ petition is similar and identical to the controversy involved in WRIT-A No. 7298 of 2022 ( Km. Kaushal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), which has been heard today and instructions have also been received by the respondents in the aforementioned writ petition.
3. No instructions have been received by the respondents in spite of the fact that sufficient time has rolled by from the date notice of present writ petition was served/received on behalf of respondents.
4. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by Respondent 3, Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj as well as the G.O. dated 01/31.03.2021 issued by Respondent 2. Petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directinig the respondents to pay pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner on the total period of service i.e. 16.03.1988 to 30.06.2017 by adding the adhoc services rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of qualifying service as per the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021.
5. Record shows that the petitioner was initially appointed on 16.03.1988 on the post of typist in U.P. Public Service Commisison on adhoc basis. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Assistant on adhoc basis against a temporary vacant post on 14.06.1989. Ultimately, the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Assistant Review Officer in terms of the U.P. Regularization of Adhoc Appointments (on post within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) 3rd Amendment Rules, 2001, vide office order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Review Officer along with other employees, vide office order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj. The said promotion was against the vacancies which fell for consideration in the selection year, 2014-2015. Ultimately, the petitioner upon attaining the age of superannuation retired from the services on 30.06.2018.
6. After the petitioner attained superannuation from her services, the State Government Order dated 01.03.2021, whereby it was provided that in all such matters relating to grant of pension and post retiral benefits in case, counter affidavit has been filed but the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020 has not been referred to then immediately supplementary counter affidavit be filed. In case, the matter has been decided then a review petition or a special appeal be filed.
The basis behind such a direction was that the qualifying service has to be calculated from the date of the order of regularization. Consequently, the services rendered prior to the date of regularization shall not be counted for the purpose of qualifying service.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been deprived of pension and other post retiral benefits by seeking the date of regularization of her services i.e. 09.05.2022 as the date of appointment of the petitioner.
8. According to the petitioner, the term qualifying service has now been modified vide U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 i.e. U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 which came into force on 05.03.2021 and the ordinance No. 19 of 2020 stood repealed. In the light of above, the petitioner claims that his post retiral dues are to be calculated as per Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961.
9. In view of above, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by means of C.M.W.P. No. 15670 of 2021 (Km. Kaushal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) which was dispossed of finally vide order dated 25.11.2021. For ready refere
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
