Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 52667 (ALL)

BRIJESH TIWARI v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 ORS.

WRIA/958/2017 · 2025-05-19

Donadi Ramesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84663 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 958 of 2017 Petitioner :- Brijesh Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent whereby the benefit of fixation of pension on the basis of last salary drawn as an ad-hoc Principal has been refused placing reliance on the Government Orders dated 08.12.2008 and 24.02.2012. 3. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court and the same was decided by the judgment dated 29.05.2017 in Writ Petition Service Single No.9395 of 2017 (Rajendra Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). 4. Admittedly, facts are not in dispute but learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others (2015) 2 SCC (L & S) 33, as the 2nd respondent did not consider any factual aspect while passing the impugned order. 5. In view of the categorical judgment on a similar issue raised, the impugned order dated 16.12.2016 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The respondents shall recompute the pension of the petitioner treating the last pay drawn by the petitioner as an ad-hoc Principal. While doing so, the respondents shall be guided by the judgment dated 29.05.2017 in the case of Rajendra Prasad Singh (supra) as also the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others (2015) 2 SCC (L & S) 33. The fresh order, as directed above, shall be passed within a period of two months. The respondents shall also take into consideration the fact that the predecessor of the petitioner was being granted the benefit whereas the same has been denied to the petitioner. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.5.2025/AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad