- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
(2.) This special appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.56161 of 2009 - Matadeen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed.
(3.) Brief facts in brief giving rise to aforesaid appeal are : 3.1 The petitioner-appellant was appointed on the post of Peon on 09.02.1970 in fixed pay scale in Junior High School, Pura Mohabbat, Block Baksha, Tehsil and District Jaunpur. 3.2 After appointment the petitioner-appellant had worked continuously on the said post without any break or any kind of complaint relating to the work and conduct by the authorities concerned. 3.3 The services of the petitioner-appellant has been regularised by the authorities concerned with effect from 16.08.1996. 3.4 After attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner was retired from service on 30.10.2003. 3.5 After his retirement, petitioner-appellant met the authorities concerned about his retirement claim and after great persuasion, though the respondent authorities paid the retiral dues to him yet respondent no.3, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur, had not given pensionary benefit to the petitioner-appellant. 3.6 The petitioner-appellant made several representation for providing the benefit of pension on the ground that he was continuously working on the post of Peon since 1970 to 2003 without any kind of break or any complaint by the authorities concerned against the petitioner-appellant relating to his work and conduct but even then the respondent authorities, did not provide pensionary benefit to the petitioner-appellant. 3.7 The petitioner-appellant moved civil misc. writ petition no.15955 of 2009 which was finally decided by this Court vide order dated 26.03.2009 with the direction to the authorities concerned to consider the claim of the petitioner-appellant. 3.8 The petitioner-appellant thereafter moved a fresh representation, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court, which was rejected by Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education vide order dated 11.08.2009 on the ground that in view of the various directions and Government Orders, the qualifying service of the petitioner-appellant was 7 years, 4 months and 10 days and according to rules, for the purpose of pension the petitioner did not complete 10 years qualifying service and therefore he would not be entitled for pension. 3.9 Challenging the order dated 11.08.2009, the petitioner filed writ petition No.56161 of 2009, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 29.10.2009. Hence this appeal.;