Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vipin Tripathi, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Tripathi, appearing for the respondent no. 4, District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri.
(2.) FACTS in brief, giving rise to the dispute, are as under. The petitioner was initially appointed as peon on 1.12.1970, a Class IV post in Junior High School, Block Angautha, Mainpuri on a fixed emoluments of Rs.53/- per month. Subsequently, vide order dated 1.10.1996, the services were absorbed and regularized and he was placed in regular pay scale admissible to the said post. The said order was passed on the basis of the order dated 30.1.1996 passed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. He retired from service on 31.08.1999. When he was denied payment of pension, he approached this Court by filing writ petition no. 41320 of 2004 which was disposed of vide order dated 4.10.2004 directing the Director of Education (Basic), U. P., Allahabad to consider the claim of petitioner and take a reasoned decision within a period of three months. In compliance of the said order, the Director of Education (Basic), U. P., Allahabad considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same on the ground that since he was absorbed and placed in regular service with effect from 1.10.1996 and has not completed ten years of qualifying service for payment of pension as the services rendered prior to his placement in regular pay scale were not liable to be added in the qualifying service hence he was not entitled for payment of any pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on a judgment of the learned single Judge in the case of Beni Prasad Vs. State of U. P. and others {2011 (4) ADJ 585} has submitted that period of service rendered on fixed pay was liable to be added towards qualifying service for entitlement of pension and the same has wrongly been denied to the petitioner on the ground that he has not put in ten years of qualifying service.
(3.) IN reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of the clarification issued by the State Government dated 8.8.1994 and 13th June, 2007, Annexure CA Rs.1' and CA Rs.2' to the counter affidavit, the services rendered on a fixed pay was not liable to be added for qualifying service for pension and since the petitioner was absorbed and placed in regular pay scale with effect from 1.10.1996 and having retired on 31.8.1999 he did not complete ten years qualifying service for pension. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;