Court No. - 4
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6628 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Lalita Devi Opposite Party :- Aradhna Shukla, Principal Secretary Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kishore Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- K.R. Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the judgement and order dated 25.10.2018 and 09.04.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.7390 of 2010. The operative portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in attached Primary Section of Sri Gandhi Ucchater Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khadda (hereinafter to be referred as 'Institution') in the then District Deoria (now in district Kushi Nagar) on 26.07.1972. Later on the Institution was upgraded upto Intermediate and came to be known as Sri Gandhi Intermediate College, Khadda (hereinafter to be referred as 'College'). The primary section of the College was brought on grant-in-aid list on 06.09.1989 and thus the U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 came to be applicable. The Government issued Government Order dated 28.01.2004 providing for pensionary benefits for teachers and employees of the attached primary section and accordingly the Provident Fund (hereinafter to be referred as 'GPF') came to be deducted from the salaries of teachers of attached primary section of recognized Intermediate Colleges. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2008 and accordingly the post retirement dues paid to him. However, pension was not paid to him as it was held that the pensionary benefits were not applicable to him. Regarding the deduction towards the GPF principal issued certificate on 01.01.2009 that though the petitioner continuously worked since 26.07.1972 till attaining the age of 62 years but the deductions towards GPF were made only on oral direction of the then District Inspector of Schools, Kushi Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as 'DIOS') since July 2004 and accordingly under the impugned order dated 03.02.2009 it was held that period for qualifying service will be counted for pension only w.e.f. the date and year GPF amount deduction actually started and in this case that is 2004. Thus, the petitioner was held not having qualifying service for the purpose of pension and hence pension has been denied under the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that calculation of period of qualifying service is not in consonance with the principles behind the object of pensionary benefits and the rules framed in connection thereof. According to him, the pension rules are of 1964 and the category of institution given under the rules includes the primary section of Intermediate Colleges. He contends the Government Order of 2004 only makes explicit the above factual position and legally speaking, he asserts, the rights created under statute cannot be abridged by executive fiats. So according to him the qualifying period has to be counted from the date of his appointment on a substantive post. On the question of deposit of management's contribution towards GPF, he contended that the said amount is liable to be paid if management did noting even after the institution coming in grant-in-aid in 1989. The petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav & Others v. State of U.P. & Others passed in Writ - A No. 28679 of 2009 in which the reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Mangali Prasad Varma v. State of U.P. & others passed in Writ Petition No. 17819 of 2007.
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the ratio laid down in the judgment of Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav (supra) and Mangali Prasad Varma (supra) and concedes that this case is also covered by the said judgments. It is also brought to the notice that judgment in Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav (supra) was challenged in Special Appeal, which also came to be dismissed.
Even otherwise, I find myself in complete agreement with the ratio of the judgment in Krishna Prasad Yadav (supra).
In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in terms of judgment and order of this Court in Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav (supra) as confirmed in Special Appeal. The order impugned dated 03.02.2009 passed by Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur denying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner is hereby quashed.
The petitioner is held entitled for pension under the Rules, 1964. The Management's contribution, which is required to be deposited, may be deducted from the ultimate pension amount which is calculated and prepared, and after making necessary deduction towards management's contribution, the pension shall be released to the petitioner forthwith.
The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is a pathetic of state of affairs that the matter of pension remained pending so long in respect of an employee who has discharged his duties diligently during his service period. After the judgments of Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav (supra) and Mangali Prasad Varma (supra) the respondents ought to have carried out the exercise on their own but it has not been done and matter remained pending before this Court for no fault on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore, entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum on the amount which shall be calculated to be paid towards pension to him after necessary deduction towards GPF. The interest shall be computed from the date of retirement till the date actual payment is made.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions."
An affidavit of compliance was filed by the opposite party.
Today when the matter was taken up Sri K. R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel placed before this Court three cheques amounting to Rs.9,739/-, Rs.42,000/- and Rs.26,000/- all dated 22.10.2021 in favour of applicant. The original cheques were handed over to the counsel for the applicant in the Court today.
It is argued by counsel for the applicant that correct calculation has not been made.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, present contempt application is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation in this regard along with the copy of this order within three weeks from today before the appropriate authority. The appropriate authority is directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months, thereafter, from the date of receipt of representation.
Order Date :- 26.10.2021 Pramod Tripathi