GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Satendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

(2.) The present intra Court Appeal has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 22/9/2021 passed in Writ-A No. 63 of 2020 (Rajendra Kumar Tyagi vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed holding that the writ petitioner/respondent satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Retirement Benefits Rules of 2011 and has rendered the qualified service of more than 20 years and stands entitled to retirement benefits and directions has been issued that the writ petitioner/respondent shall be entitled to payment of pension alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of his retirement till actual payment.

(3.) The writ petition was instituted with the allegation that the writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Legal Assistant consequent to an advertisement dtd. 18/2/1988 issued for appointment to the posts of Cost Accountant, Assistant Cost Accountant, Legal Assistant and Stenographer Typist. The writ petitioner faced selection and appointment letter dtd. 7/5/1988 was issued appointing the writ petitioner on the post of Legal Assistant on ad hoc basis till further orders. The writ petitioner joined his services and worked as Law Assistant. Meanwhile, one Sri Naresh Dutt Tyagi who was working as Law Officer with the appellant Development Authority superannuated on 30/9/2000 and he was paid his pension. It was pleaded in the writ petition that the post of Law Officer was sanctioned by the Board of the Ghaziabad Development Authority in terms of the provisions of Sec. 5(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Subsequently, vide Government Order dtd. 10/3/2017, the post of Law Assistant and Law Officer were merged and re-designated as Law Officer and the writ petitioner was absorbed on the post of Law Officer in terms of the order dtd. 15/3/2017. The writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31/7/2018 and submitted his claim for payment of pension but the same was declined solely on the ground that the post of Law Assistant was not sanctioned and accordingly the writ petitioner was not entitled for payment of the pension.