Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6541 of 2021 Petitioner :- Mohd. Adil Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Education And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The claim of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits has been rejected by the respondents by means of the order impugned. The claim for pension is made in light of the provisions made under the U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employees' Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance- Pension Rules, 1964. The sole ground on which the aforesaid claim has come to be rejected is that when the institution was not under grant in aid list, the Management had not deposited any contribution and that the period of service rendered while the institution was not aided is not liable to be included for the purposes of computing qualifying service.
The view as taken and expressed in the impugned order would not sustain in light of the decision rendered by the Court in Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2015 (2) ADJ 663] where the following observations were made:-
"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."
In view of the aforesaid, learned Standing Counsel states that the ends of justice would warrant the order impugned being set aside and the matter be remitted to the first respondent for consideration afresh.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15 February 2021 is quashed. The matter shall stand remitted to the first respondent for deciding the claim of the petitioner in light of the observations made in Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav. The exercise of consideration may be concluded within a period of two months from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Rakesh