UMA PRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ankit Singh, holding brief of Mr. R.B.S. Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Jaiswal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 13.5.2010 passed by the Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, Irrigation Department, Ambedkarnagar (opposite party No.3), whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of compassionate allowance, pension and gratuity in pursuance to the provisions of Regulation 353 of Civil Service Regulations has been rejected. Further the petitioner is seeking directions against the opposite parties to extend the benefits as provided under Regulation 353 of the Civil Services Regulations to him and also release/pay compassionate allowance/pension, GPF, Group Insurance, Gratuity etcetra to him along with interest @18% per annum on account of delayed payment.

(3.) Petitioner was appointed as Tubwell Operator on 1.12.1954 and in due course of his employment, he was promoted to the post of Section Mistry in the year 1974. According to the petitioner, while working as Section Mistry, his services were terminated on the ground of unauthorized absence vide order dated 28.9.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner had moved a representation on 12.10.1982 followed by a reminder dated 5.12.1983, praying therein for payment of his services dues including General Provident Fund, Gratuity, Group Insurance etc.