Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 70583 of 2009 Petitioner :- Shri Ram Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Jokhan Prasad Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division
Bench judgment in the case of Board of Revenue and others Vs.
Pradish Narain Upadhyay reported in 2006 (1) ESC Page 611 and
contends that the petitioner has been wrongly denied the
pensionary benefits. Sri Jokhan Prasad has further relied on the
Division Bench judgment in the case of State of U.P. and others
Vs. Sri Rajendra Nath Pandey reported in 2008 (26) Lucknow
Civil Decision Page 1760 to support his contention. He further
relied on the decision of Mohd. Mustafa Vs. State of U.P. and
others reported in 2009 ACJ Page 1685. Learned counsel,
therefore, contends that in view of the ratio of the aforesaid
decisions the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
I have perused the decision in the case of Bansh Gopal V. State of
U.P. and others reported in 2006 (6) ALJ Page 549. The said
decision takes notice of the judgment in the case of Pradish Narain
Upadhyay (Supra) and further arrives at the conclusion that the
case of Pradish Narain Upadhyay proceeds on a different provision
altogether and it was not a matter as is involved in the case of
Bansh Gopal whereby the appellant was not found have rendered
10 years regular service after having been lifted from the work
charge establishment.
In the present case the impugned order records that the petitioner
has been brought in the regular establishment on 17.5.2006 and
thereafter he has not completed the requisite years of service for
the purpose of extending the benefits as claim by the petitioner.
The case of Bansh Gopal, therefore, squarely covers the case of the
petitioner.
In view of this there is no merit in the petition the petition is
accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2010
Shiraz