- (1.) Heard Sri Prakhar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranav Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner has preferred this petition so as to challenge the judgment and order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. The petitioner worked as a Professor and attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.1998. His pension was computed on the basis of his total length of service, i.e., 24 years 10 moths and 7 days upto 27.5.1996, on which date he took voluntary retirement. The petitioner represented that he is entitled to computation of pension by taking his service upto the date of superannuation, i.e. 31.7.1998. The representation of the petitioner was allowed and his pensionary benefits were revised by taking his total length of service to 27 years 11 days. This period was calculated by taking 16.7.1971 as date of inclusion into service of the petitioner. The petitioner protested against the said and alleged that prior to above, he had worked as Demonstrator and as such, his service from 1.1.1966 to 16.7.1971 should also be added in his total length of service for the purposes of computing the pension.
(3.) This benefit inspite of repeated representations of the petitioner was not accorded to him. Therefore, he preferred a claim under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order for the following reasons- i) that the claim petition is barred by time; ii) the claim of the petitioners is barred by estoppel and iii) the petitioner is not entitled to the addition of the above period for the purposes of pension in view of Article 352 of the C.S.R. ;