Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 1997
  6. /
  7. January

Bhagwati Prasad Nigam vs Director Of Education ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|03 December, 1997

JUDGMENT / ORDER

JUDGMENT J.C. Gupta, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant and pay pension to the petitioner from 1.7.1986 with interest and to pay the Provident Fund, Gratuity, Group Insurance etc. to the petitioner with interest.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was originally appointed in the College in question on 6.7.1949 as Assistance Teacher in C.T. Grade and thereafter he was appointed on the post of Lecturer in English in November, . 1953 and was confirmed on the said post. According to the petitioner since the age of retirement of the Teachers in the High School and Intermediate College is 60 years as provided under Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the-Regulations framed under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.9.1985 and could be retired on 30th June, 1986 at the end of the academic session. It may be mentioned here that one Sri Udho Prasad Singh, permanent Principal retired, on 30.6.1982 on attaining his age of superannuation and the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis on the post of Principal on the College by the Committee of Management on 30.6.1982. Salary of the petitioner was revised and fixed by the D.I.O.S. by his order dated 6.12.1982 in the grade of Principal. Although the petitioner was to retire on 30.6.1986, but he was illegally retired from service by the Committee of Management of the College on 30.6.1984. The petitioner made Several representations against his illegal retirement by the Committee of Management at the age of 58 years but all went in vain. The petitioner's case is that he is entitled to post-retirement benefits of Pension, Gratuity, Provident Fund and Group Insurance etc. calculated on actual date of his retirement i.e. 30.6.1986 but has not been paid Pension, Group Insurance, Gratuity and Provident Fund etc. till the date of filling of the writ petition.
3. Respondent No. 3 D.I.O.S. filed counter affidavit and his case is that since the petitioner had exercised option for retiring at the age of 60 years and as the same was irrevocable he was not entitled to Gratuity and his representation to retire him at the age of 58 years was therefore, rejected. The appointment of the petitioner was made on the post of Principal on ad hoc basis till a regular selection was made and as one Balveer Singh was selected and appointed through selection by the Secondary Education Service Commission by the order dated 14.3.1984, the petitioner who was to retire at the age of 60 years was directed to continue in his service on his substantive post of Lecturer in English but the petitioner refused to serve and since he had put in service after date 30.6.1984 he is not entitled to salary on the principle of no woke no pay' and also the Gratuity as no Gratuity was admissible to those teachers who had given option to retire them at the age of 60 years. As regards the payment of Provident Fund, it is stated by Respondent No. 3 that the same has been paid and the matter of payment of Pension and Group Insurance is being finalised and the delay has been occasioned on account of the fact that the petitioner has not submitted the necessary from and documents.
4. In the rejoinder affidavit it could not be disputed that after 30.6.1984, the petitioner did not serve the Institution either on the post of ad hoc Principal or as Lecturer. He also could not dispute that he had not exercised the option to retire him at the age of 60 years. Under the Regulations since the petitioner had given option to retire him at the age of 60 years, he was not entitled to Gratuity. As far as the payment of Pension and the amount of Group Insurance are concerned, in the circumstances, the respondents are directed to settle the petitioner's claim within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and if for that purpose any forms or other documents are still required to be filed in by the petitioner, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to do so within two weeks form the date of his appearance before Respondent No. 2 alongwith a certified copy of this order and the entire arrears of Pension and Group Insurance as admissible to the petitioner shall be paid to him within the said period alongwith interest of @ of 12% per annum calculated from the date upto which the petitioner was in service.
5. With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Bhagwati Prasad Nigam vs Director Of Education ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
03 December, 1997
Judges
  • J Gupta