Daya Shankar Tripathi, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 31.08.2015 (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition) passed by the Principal Secretary, Medical Education, U.P. Secretariat, Ayush-I, Lucknow whereby the claim of the petitioner for pension and other post retiral dues have been denied.
(2.) Facts giving rise to this writ petition in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Part Time Medical Officer on 17.11.1989. Later on by Government order, his services were made ad hoc on 30.03.1992. The petitioner regularly served the department and by Government Order, he was regularized in the department on 16.03.2005. The petitioner retired on 31.12.2011. The petitioner claimed for pension and post retiral benefits which were not being paid on the ground that his ad hoc services cannot be counted towards qualifying pension, as such the petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ - A No.64534 of 2013. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 09.01.2014 by the Division Bench of this Court with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation and on such a representation being filed, respondent No.3 was directed to consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks. Aforesaid order dated 09.01.2014 is reproduced below: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has retired from the office of State Ayurvedic Dispensary Ratanpur, District Jaunpur on 31st December, 2011. His pension has been determined under the order dated 26th February, 2010 ( Page-29 of the paper book). Petitioner is aggrieved by the letter forwarded by Additional Director Treasure and Pension addressed to Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer directing the Adhikari to submit proposal for revised pension of the petitioner in terms of the letter of the Pension Directorate U.P State, Lucknow dated 23.3.2013 read with the Government Order dated 16.3.2005. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision of pension as directed will effect his pension already fixed adversely. We find that the letter of the Directorate dated 23.3.2013 has not been brought on record. The Government Order dated 16.3.2005 is also not on record. Therefore, the exact reasons for redetermination of the pension of the petitioner with reference to the Government Order dated 16.3.2005 is not known to the Court. Consequential order cannot be challenged without challenging the main order i.e., 23.3.2013. However, we provide that the petitioner may make a representation in the matter of revision of his pension in terms of impugned order before the respondent no.3 within two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order. On such a representation being filed, respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within four weeks from the date the representation is filed. While examining the grievance of the petitioner the respondent authorities shall keep in mind the law laid down by the High Court in the case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Others Writ Petition No. 61974 of 2011 decided on 1.3.2012. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of."
(3.) Despite the aforesaid order being passed, the respondents did not decide the claim of the petitioner, then the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.4114 of 2014 in which this Court had issued notices to the respondents then they decided and rejected the representation of the petitioner vide orders dated 01.08.2014 and 04.08.2014.;