Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14815 of 2020 Petitioner :- Jang Bahadur Singh And 5 Others Respondent :- District Inspector Of Schools Ghaziabad And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Following orders were passed in the matter on 14.07.2021:-
"It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were appointed between 1993 to 1998 as Assistant Teacher on ad-hoc basis. He submits that services of the petitioners have been regularised w.e.f 22.03.2016. He further contends that this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others in Writ-A No.25431 of 2018 held that ad-hoc services rendered by teachers is to be counted for the purpose of pension and their pension is to be calculated under the Old Pension Scheme.
Thus, the submission is that the dispute involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra).
Let learned Standing Counsel for the respondents may seek instruction within a period of two weeks as to whether the dispute involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra).
Put up as fresh on 27.07.2021."
Learned standing counsel has obtained instructions accordingly and the fact that controversy in the present petition stands concluded by the Judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No. 25431 of 2018) is not disputed. A Special Appeal Defective No.181 of 2020 filed before the Division Bench in the matter of Sunita Sharma has also been dismissed on 11.06.2020.
Learned Standing Counsel, however submits that the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Mithlesh Kumari Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor and others (Writ Petition No. 24267 of 2018), as affirmed in appeal, is pending consideration before the Supreme Court wherein an order of status quo has been passed. The judgment in the case of Mithlesh Kumari was with regard to counting of ad-hock services for the purpose of grant of selection grade, which is not the question herein. The claim of the petitioner is to be governed by the provisions of U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employees Contributory Provident Fund-Pension Rules, 1964, which clearly contemplates counting of continuous, temporary or officiating service followed without interruption with confirmation towards qualifying service. The rules of 1964 have also not been amended. The position clarified by this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma therefore, would clearly be attracted in the facts of the present case particularly after the state's appeal has been dismissed.
In view of the discussions aforesaid, it is clear that petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits under the Rules of 1964 and for such purposes the adhoc continuance from 1993-98 to 22.03.2016 followed with regularization would have to be counted towards qualifying service for sanction and fixation of pension. A mandamus is issued accordingly to the respondents for grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioners. Necessary order in that regard would be passed by the competent authority within a period of three months. All consequential benefits would also be extended to the petitioner within a further period of six weeks thereafter.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Abhishek Singh