Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 985 (ALL)

STATE OF U. P. v. LAXMAN PRASAD BHASNEY

2008-05-02

ALLAH RAHAM, U.K.DHAON

body2008
JUDGMENT Honble Allah Raham, J.—Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hemendra Pratap learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 2. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2004 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal Lucknow by which the Claim Petition preferred by the opposite party No. 1 was partly allowed and the petitioners were directed to pay the pension amount, gratuity and 10% of the G.P.F. with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 3. The only point which the learned Standing Counsel has pressed before us is that the opposite party No. 1 was considered for regularization vide order dated 12.9.1997 but he was not found fit for regularization and as such he is not entitled for any pensionary benefits being an ad-hoc employee till his retirement. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2004 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. He further submits that the Tribunal after considering the decision of this Court reported in 1990 (4) S. L. R. 72, Hari Shanker Asopa v. State of U.P. and another has held that the temporary Government servant cannot be denied pensionary benefit. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite party No. 1 was selected as Assistant Prosecuting Officer in the year 1978 and was appointed as an ad-hoc employee against the permanent vacancy. After completion of 23 years of service, the opposite party No. 1 has attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2001. The Tribunal while deciding the Claim Petition has also considered that the candidature of the opposite party No. 1 for regularization was rejected by order dated 12.9.1997. The Tribunal has allowed the Claim Petition on the basis of the law declared by this Court in the case of Hari Shanker Asopa v. State of U.P. and another (supra). Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Board of Revenue through its Chairman, U.P. Lucknow and others v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyaya, 2006 (1) ESC 611 (All)(DB). 6. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Board of Revenue through its Chairman, U.P. Lucknow and others v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyaya, 2006 (1) ESC 611 (All)(DB). 6. It is also admitted case of the parties that the order dated 12.9.1997 was never communicated to the opposite party No. 1 and he was allowed to continue in service till he attained the age of superannuation. 7. We are of the view, that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2004 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal Lucknow. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. 9. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ————