SHYAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Vivek Sirswal, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Sri Angrej Nath Shukla, Km. Pratima Devi, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Sri Lalji Yadav, Sri Manendra Nath Rai, Sri Fahmid Ahmad, Sri Mohd. Ateeq Khan, Sri Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhans, Sri Shobh Nath Pandey, Sri Sudeep Kumar, Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, Sri Mohd. Tauseef Siddiqui, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Sri Yogesh Chandra Srivastava, Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, Sri Mrinal Tripathi, Sri Nirankar Singh, Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Sri Vimal Kumar, Km. Vishwa Mohini, Sri Ashwani Kumar, Sri Arvind Pratap Singh, Sri V.K. Shukla, Sri Aditya Vikram Shahi, Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Sri Mukesh Kumar, Sri Digvijay Singh Yadav, Sri Pradip Kumar Srivastava, Sri Lalendra Pratap Singh, Sri A.P. Singh, Sri Satish Kumar Sharma and Sri Praful Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) This Bunch of writ petitions relates to interpretation and application of Sec. 2 of the Act of 2021 for counting qualifying service for the purpose of pension with regard to work charge employees, daily wager employees, adhoc appointees against the post as well as Seasonal Collection Amin. Since common issue is involved in all the writ petitions with regard to interpretation of Sec. 2 of Sec. 2021, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgment.

(3.) The petitioners are work charge employees appointed between 1979 to 1988 and regularized in different departments between 1994 to 2013. All the petitioners are now retired. They claim entitlement of pension after taking into account the services rendered by them as work charge employee.