Allahabad High Court
RAMESH KUMAR UPADHYAYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The court held that the petition shall be disposed at the admissions stage, directing the respondent to consider any fresh representation by the petitioner regarding his pension grievance.
Summary
The petitioner, an ad‑hoc Assistant Teacher appointed in 1993 and regularized in 2017 under Section 33‑G of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, reached superannuation on 31‑03‑2026 but his pension calculation excluded the ad‑hoc service period. He filed a writ petition seeking inclusion of that period for pension benefits. The respondents indicated that a fresh representation before the education authority would be entertained. The High Court, at the admissions stage, directed that if the petitioner files a fresh representation within seven days, accompanied by a certified copy of the order, the authority must decide it expeditiously, preferably within two months. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of pending such representation.
Issues considered
- Whether the ad‑hoc service period of the petitioner should be counted towards his pension entitlement.
- Whether the writ petition can be disposed at the admissions stage pending a fresh representation by the petitioner.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pension
- ad‑hoc appointment
- regularisation
- writ petition
- superannuation
- Section 33-G
- education services
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14202 of 2026
Ramesh Kumar Upadhyay
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aman Arya, Saumitra Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Shri Aman Arya, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed notices to respondent no.5 is
dispensed with.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was
appointed in the Institution in question on adhoc basis, on the post of
Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade; and was also issued an appointment letter
by the Manager of the Institution on 06.09.1993. Thereafter the District
Inspector of Schools, Varanasi has approved the appointment vide its
order dated 22.08.1996; where after the services of the petitioner was
regularized vide order dated 29.07.2017, passed by the Joint Director of
Education, Varanasi Region, under Section 33-G of the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board Act 1982, in pursuance of a
recommendation dated 20.06.2017. He continued in service and
eventually attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2026; however,
the benefit of the services rendered as an adhoc employee is not being
computed, for the purposes of grant of pension. He has also submitted a
representation on 08.05.2026 before the respondent no.3.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in case the petitioner
makes a fresh representation before the respondent no. 3, the same shall
be accorded consideration.
WRIA No. 14202 of 2026
2
5. In view of the aforesaid, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping
the present writ petition pending and on the consent of the parties the writ
petition is being decided at the admissions stage itself by providing that in
case the petitioner moves a fresh representation for redressal of his
grievance along with the certified copy of this order within 7 days from
today, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent no. 3
by passing a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably
within the further period of two months from the date of receiving of the
said representation before him.
6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands
disposed off.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
September 23, 2026
S.Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…