Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8843 of 2018
Petitioner :- Balram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri Shailesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 4.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondent no.2 Joint Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur to take into account the entire length of service of the petitioner computed from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of computation of the retiral benefits of the petitioner in terms of the judgment and order dated 18.05.2016 passed in the case of Paras Nath and three others in Writ-A No. 22974 of 2016. The order is quoted below;-
"Four petitioners are stated to be working in the Panchayat Inter College, Partawal Bazzar, District Maharajganj and attached to its primary section. The petitioners are claiming their entire length of service be computed from the date of initial appointment for purpose of computing retrial benefits and pension etc.
Reliance has been placed upon a judgement of this Court in the case of Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav and others vs. State of U.P. and others Writ Petition no.28679 of 2009. This Court in the case of Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav (supra) has held that primary section was issued grant in aid with effect from 1.10.1989 and, therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to pension.
Referring the provisions of the U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employees' Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964 this Court in Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav (supra) has held as under:-
"The category of Institutions referred in Rule 3 clearly include Primary Sections. It is the undisputed position that the Institutions in which the petitioners were serving had Primary Sections and even though run by Private Management were recognized for the purposes of payment of grant-in-aid. These Rules did not prescribe a cut off date for the purposes of a person becoming eligible for grant of pension thereunder. In fact, Rule 4(b) clearly throws light on this aspect of the matter when it grants an option to existing members in permanent service to opt and elect to be governed by these Rules. The Rules themselves came into effect from 1.10.1964 and would, therefore, be applicable to all thereof. Insofar as the aspect of deposit of management contribution as envisaged under the said Rule is concerned, this Court had already struck down the cut of date of 31st March, 2002 as prescribed by the Government Order dated 26.07.2001 in Smt. Shanti Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and Others passed in W.P. No. 75746 of 2006 and the said decision has been consistently followed in various other cases decided by this Court including W.P. No. 17033 of 2012, Lal Chand Singh Vs. State of U.P. And Others. About the payment of pension being governed solely by the provisions of the Rules 1964, this Court is of the opinion that its applicability could not have been eclipsed or in any manner straddled over by the Government Order dated 20th January, 2004. This Court is in agreement with the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge in Mangali Prasad (supra) on the issue that merely because there was delay in issuing appropriate clarifications with regard to the applicability of the Rules to Primary Sections, the same could not have denuded the petitioners of their right to claim pension under the Rules 1964. It is further relevant to note here that the Primary Section was an integral part of the Institution and the teachers attached thereto could not have been discriminated for the purposes of payment of pension merely because they came on to grant-in-aid list w.e.f. 1.10.1989. In the opinion of the Court, there is no provision under the Rules 1964 which curtails the computation of length of qualifying service to the time when the Primary Sections became or came under the grant-in-aid list.
Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and it is accordingly held that the petitioners shall be entitled to pension under the provisions of the Rules 1964. The management contribution required to be deposited may be so made within a period of two months and thereafter the respondents shall proceed to compute the pension of the petitioners taking into account the total length of qualifying service rendered by them and in light of the observations made hereinabove. The pension so computed and becoming liable to be paid to the petitioners from their respective dates of superannuation will be paid within a period of two months from the date of deposit of management contribution and the arrears shall carry interest of 12 per cent per annum.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms indicated above."
Learned standing counsel could not dispute this legal position and in fact submitted that ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav (supra) would be applicable in the case of the petitioners.
This writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3, Deputy Director of Education,VII Region, Gorakhpur to examine the claim of the petitioners with regard to working. If the same is correct as stated in the writ petition, the petitioners will be entitled to count length of service from the date of initial appointment for purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Such a decision shall be taken by the respondent no.3 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office."
It is pointed out that the competent authority to take a decision in the matter is the respondent no.2 Joint Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur.
No useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending.
This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 Joint Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur to take a decision with regard to the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav (supra) in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in his office.
It is made clear that the court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Neeraj