Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8442 of 2021 Petitioner :- Kumari Manju Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Sanjeev Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner was offered adhoc appointment in 1998 as Assistant Teacher. The appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 28.11.1998. Ultimately services of petitioner have been regularized w.e.f. 22.2.2016 in accordance with Section 33-G of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. Petitioner is due to superannuate in the year 2023. It is submitted that unless benefit of regularization is granted from 16.11.1998 the petitioner would stand to loose and she would not complete qualifying service for the purposes of grant of pension.
Learned Standing Counsel opposes the prayer made in the writ petition.
Payment of pension to the teachers of recognized privately managed institution is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964. Rule 19(b) of the Rules of 1964 reads as under:-
"19.(b) Continuous temporary or officiating service followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall also count as qualifying service."
This Court in the case of Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, passed in Writ Petition No.25431 of 2018, decided on 20.12.2018, after examining the law has been pleased to observed as under:-
".........
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 1996- 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 petitioner. Necessary order in that regard could 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 two months thereafter."
The aforesaid judgment has also been affirmed with dismissal of special appeal. In such circumstances the claim of petitioner for payment of pension etc., as and when it arise, shall be dealt with keeping in view the provisions contained under Rule 19(b) of the Rules of 1964 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra).
The date of regularization, however, cannot be preponed, inasmuch as the benefit of regularization under Section 33-G would be available only w.e.f. 22.3.2016. Enabling provision contained under Section 33-G of the Act of 1982 is otherwise not under challenge. Prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regularization from a previous date, therefore, cannot be sustained and the relief to that extent is declined.
However, as and when the petitioner attains the age of superannuation her claim for payment of pension etc. would be considered, in light of the above observations.
Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Anil