ABDUL MOIN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Sri J.V.S.Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 and 3.
(2.) Under challenge is the order dated 19.07.2010, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Shiksha, District-Sultanpur by which the petitioner's claims for grant of pension and other retiral dues by treating his qualifying service as ten years has been rejected. A further prayer is for a Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner ignoring the condition mentioned at Clause 4 (1) of the Government order dated 16.09.2009 with the further direction to the respondents to make payment of arrears of pension as admissible to the petitioner.
(3.) The case set forth by the petitioner is that an advertisement had been published by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Sultanpur for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (BTC Training) in primary school run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The petitioner finding himself eligible in terms of the said advertisement applied and the selection proceedings were completed in February, 1993. The petitioner was thereafter issued with an appointment letter dated 30.06.1993, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition and in pursuance thereof he submitted his joining on 20.07.1993. Through an order dated 26.08.1993, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on various grounds. Being aggrieved with the cancellation of appointment, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 8381 (SS) of 1993 In re; Surya Pratap Dubey v. State of U.P and Ors. and this Court vide judgment and order dated 10.03.2006, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 26.08.1993 with a further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work on the post of Assistant Teacher of primary school with all benefits as permissible under the law. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner had retired on 30.06.2003.;