BENI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Vimal Chandra Mishra, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and has filed counter-affidavit. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that he does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit and the matter may be heard on the basis of record of the writ petition and averments made in the counter-affidavit.

(2.) The grievance of the Petitioner is that of non-payment of retiral benefits by the Respondents. The Respondents are denying retiral benefits to the Petitioner on the ground that he did not complete minimum qualifying service attracting the provisions of pension etc. The Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Peon on 8.10.1964 in the office of Respondent No. 2 by the Additional Basic Education Officer, Banda and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 31.1.1999 but the retiral benefits have not been paid to him. Hence he made representations, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

(3.) Respondents have stated in the counter-affidavit that the Petitioner was initially appointed in Junior High School on 8.10.1964 on a fixed pay of Rs. 40/-per month and he worked as such till 28.2.1997, whereafter he was placed in the regular pay scale of Rs. 750-940 with effect from 1.3.1997 and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 31.1.1999. It is said that since the Petitioner was regularised only on 1.3.1997 and his earlier service was on fixed pay he did not qualify for pension in view of the decision taken by the State Government as communicated by Special Secretary, of the U.P. Government on 13.6.2007.