SANT RAM MAURYA Vs. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) The admitted brief facts of the case are to the effect that the petitioner was engaged as work charge employee on 26.10.1999 on the post of Supervisor. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties on the said post and he discharged his duties at the utmost satisfaction of his higher authorities. Meanwhile the Government Order dated 21.12.2010 was issued and looking at the services of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as a regular employee on 30.12.2010 and after attaining the age of 60 years, i.e., the superannuation age, the petitioner retired from service on 30.9.2017. The petitioner worked for about 20 years as a work charged employee and about 7 years as a regular employee.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner has retired on 30-09-2017, but, till date, no pension has been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner believes that the opposite parties are not adding the services rendered by the petitioner as Workcharge employee for the purposes of granting of pension.