Heard Sri S.K. Singh Kalhans, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Kumar , learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
In the city of Lucknow, there is an institution known as Jan Vikas Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Papna Mau, Lucknow ( hereinafter referred as 'Institution') governed by the provisions as provided under U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Payment of Salary Act etc. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the institution on 22.8.1978 . At the time when the petitioner was appointed, the institution was not getting any grant in aid from the State Government. Subsequently , the institution came under Grant- in- Aid List on 1.12.1998. On 30.6.2007, the petitioner retired after attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Assistant Teacher . In respect to payment of pension after retirement, petitioner submitted his grievance by way representations to the authorities concerned but no heed has been paid by them , hence for redresssal of his grievance, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 4981 (SS) of 2010 ( Atibal Singh Vs. Sate of U.P. and others) , the same was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 22.7.2010, the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"Considering the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the representation of the petitioner, contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition, shall be considered and disposed of by the competent authority by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him."
In pursuance to the said direction given by this Court , the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by order dated 12.10.2010 ( Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.2/ Deputy Director of Education ( Secondary) VI Region , Lucknow on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for getting pension as he has not rendered his service of ten years from the date i.e. 1.12.1998 when the institution in question came under grant-in-aid which is mandatory as per rules in order to get pension and the total length of service of the petitioner is only eight years and seven months from the date when the institution in question came in grant-in-aid list.
In the instant matter, on the basis of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the material on record, it is not disputed that the institution in question came in grant-in-aid list on 1.12.1998 and the petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2007. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of clause II of the Government Order dated 24.4.2001 ( Annexure no.3) , it is mandatory on the part of the authority of institution / opposite party no. 4 to take steps for depositing the required CPF on behalf of teaching and non-teaching staff like petitioner in order to get pensionary benefit but the said exercise was not done by the opposite party no.4, so the petitioner cannot be deprived from his legal right to get pension.
Further, by letter dated 16.7.2009 ( Annexure no.4) , a request has been made to the State Government for issuance of Government Order in respect to the extension of period for depositing the CPF amount upto 31.3.2010, the same is pending before the State Government for consideration, as such the action on the part of the respondent no.4 thereby passing the impugned order , rejecting the claim of the petitioner is totally illegal , arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Learned State Counsel , on the other hand, submits that from the date when the institution in question came under grant-in-aid list I.e.1.12.1998 and till the date of retirement of the petitioner on 30.6.2007, he has rendered his service only for a period of eight years and seven months and on the basis of the same , petitioner is not entitled for any pension . Further by the Government Order dated 24.4.2001 , the last date for depositing the managerial contribution of CPF was fixed up till 31.3.1996 but the petitioners managerial contribution for the period 22.8.1978 to 30.11.1998 was not deposited as such the said period cannot be counted for calculating the pension . Further, by letter dated 16.7.2009, a recommendation has been made for extension of time for depositing the managerial contribution up to 31.3.2010 but no action has been taken in this regard by the State Government so the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the said documents.
It is further submitted by the learned State Counsel that as per Article 474 of the Civil Services Regulation for grant of pension ten years qualifying services is mandatory and in the present case petitioner's qualifying services is only eight years and seven months and the managerial contribution for the period from 22.7.1978 to 30.11.1998 has not been deposited, so the said period cannot be counted for calculation of pension, hence the petitioner is not entitled for any pension .
In view of the above , the position which emerge out is to effect that as per Regulation 370 (ii) Civil Service Regulation only those employees, who are regularly appointed on substantive basis and have completed ten years service, are entitled for pension and post retrial benefits.
The "qualifying service" for the purposes of pension is provided in Section (i) of Chapter 16. The Regulation 361 of the Civil Service Regulations provides the condition of the qualification, which reads as follows :
"361. The service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms tothe following three conditions:
(A) The service must be under Government.
(B) The employment must by substantive and permanent.
(C) The service must be paid by Government."
Regulation 368 of Civil Service Regulation provides that service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment.
Regulation 370 of Civil Service Regulation after the amendment w.e.f. 20.4.1977 reads as follows:
"370. Continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruptions by confirmation in the same or any other post shall qualify except--
(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non- pensionable establishment;
(ii) periods of service in work charged establishment; and
(iii) periods of service in a post paid form contingencies."
Article 424 of Chapter 18 of the Civil Service Regulations provides the following kinds of pension admissible to a Government servant (a) compensation pension (b) invalid pensions (c) superannuation pension (d) retiring pensions.
Fundamental Rule 56 provides for retiring of a Government servant on attaining the age of 58 years or 60 years as the case may be. It is not disputed that in the present case, the age of superannuation of the petitioner-respondent was 60 years. Clause (e) of Fundamental Rule 56 reads as under:
(e) "A retiring pension shall be payable and other retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to every Government servant who retires or is required allowed to retire under this rule:
Provided that where a Government servant who voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this rule the appointing authority may allow him, for the purposes of pension and gratuity, if any, the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation, whichever be less."
Article 465 and 465-A provides as under:
"465 (1) A retiring pension is granted to a Government servant who is permitted to retire after competing qualifying service for 25 years or on attaining the age of 50 years.
(2)A retiring pension is also granted to a Government servant who is required by Government to retire after attaining the age of 50 years.
465-A. For officers mentioned in Article 349-A, the rule for the grant of retiring pension is as follows;
(1)An officer is entitled on his resignation being accepted, to a retiring pension after completing qualifying service of not less than 25 years, or on attaining the age of 50 years.
(2)A retiring pension is also granted to an office who is required by Government to retire after attaining the age of 50 years."
In Law of Lexicons the expression ' regular' and 'regular services' have been assigned meanings at page 1638-1639 as under:
" Regular - Webster defines "regular" to mean conformable to a rule; methodical; periodical.
"REGULAR" is derived from "regular", meaning "rule", and its first and legitimate signification, according to Webster, is "conformable to a rule' agreeable to an established rule, law, or principle, to a prescribed mode, or according to established, customary forms."
Regular- Conformable to rule; periodical; recurring or repeated at fixed times or uniform intervals; properly constituted; normal; marked by steadiness or uniformity of action, procedure or occurrence.
Regular services- The expression 'regular forces' mean officers and soldiers who by their commission, terms of enlistment, or otherwise are liable to render continuously for a term military service to His Majesty in every part of the world or in any specified part of the world. R.v. Governor of Wormwood Scrubbs Prison, (1948) 1 All ER 438, 441 (KBD). [Army Act. S. 190(8)]( See; State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.C. Association's , 2000(8) SCC 4, State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi , (2009)12 SCC 49 and State of Punjab Vs. Ashwani Kumar, AIR 2009 SC 186)"
In the present case, the institution in question where the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher, came under the grant-in-aid only on 1.12.1998 and till the date of retirement i.e. 30.6.2007, petitioner rendered his service of eight years and seven months, thus he does not have a qualifying service of ten years for getting the pension and the period from the date of joining his service as Assistant Teacher i.e. 22.8.1978 till the institution in question came under grant- in-aid cannot be counted for the purpose of pension , so I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which is under challenge in the present writ petition[See: Pratap Narain Chaddha Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(4) ADJ 714 (DB)] For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed as such.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :-18.5.2012 dk/