V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) Gaya Prasad Shukla is assailing the validity of order dated 23.05.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.77957/2005 (Gaya Prasad Shukla v. State of U.PL. and others ) wherein the learned Single Judge has proceeded to non-suit the claim of petitioner-appellant in following terms:- The petitioner retired from service as Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat on 31.1.2001, after completing 33 years of service. The petitioner became entitled for pension. The respondents calculated the pension by taking 25 years of service. The petitioner made a representation which was rejected by the impugned order dated 5.10.2005, passed by the Additional Director, respondent No.2. The petitioner has therefore, filed the present writ petition. The sole contention before the Court is whether the respondents were justified in not adding 8 years 10 months of the petitioner's service while calculating the pension. According to the respondents this period was not added as he was on unauthorized leave and this period was treated as leave without pay. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Bhagmaniya Devi v. State of U.P. and others, Laws (All.) 1998-9-11, in which, in similar circumstances the Court held that the period spent on unauthorized absence would be treated as leave without pay and that such period should be counted for calculation of retirement benefits. In the instance case, the Court finds, that the authority has taken support of a Government Order dated 20.7.1989, which indicates that the period spent on unauthorized leave would not be counted as period spent on service for the purpose of calculation of retirement benefits. In the light of this Government Order, which has not been disputed by the petitioner, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(2.) Petitioner-appellant joined service in the year 1967 as Panchayat Secretary in Zila Karyalaya (Pnachayat Anubhag), Mirzapur and with the passage of time has been promoted as Assistant Development Officer. Petitioner-appellant retired from the post of Assistant Development Officer on 31.03.2001 and his retiral benefits have been finalized by taking into account 25 years of service whereas petitioner-appellant claimed that as his continuity in service has been accepted, his retiral benefits be finalized by keeping in view the service rendered by him for 33 years 10 months.
(3.) Petitioner-appellant came to this Court and this Court in Writ Petition No.17983 of 2005 asked the Additional Director, Panchayat Raj, U.P. at Lucknow to take decision on petitioner's claim within stipulated period and thereafter the decision in question has been taken and claim in question has been non-suited vide order dated 05.10.2015 passed by Additional Director, Panchayat Raj, U.P. at Lucknow on account of the fact that for period of eight years and 10 months, petitioner-appellant has not at all functioned and accordingly, no salary has been paid to him and in view of this, the said period cannot be clubbed for counting service for providing pensionary benefits to the petitioner-appellant. The order dated 05.10.2005 has been subjected to challenge before learned Single Judge and as mentioned above the Learned Single Judge has upheld the order dated 05.10.2005 passed by Additional Director, Panchayat Raj, U.P. at Lucknow.;