Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25234 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sajal Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner in this petition is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to permit the petitioner to contribute the premium of GPF amount from the date on which the petitioner has completed one year service treating said appointment as a permanent appointment.
The petitioner was appointed as untrained Assistant Teacher in the Primary School run by Basic Shiksha Parishad under Dying in Harness Rules on 01.02.2001 on account of sudden death of his father who was a permanent teacher in Basic School and since then he is continuously discharging his duties and getting the salary. After five years satisfactory service, petitioner was given trained scale vide order dated 22.12.2008.
The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents had not been deducted the G.P.F. amount/ premium from his salary on the pretext that old pension scheme is not applicable to the petitioner, which act of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal in view of Rule 4 of General Provident Fund (U.P.) (Amendment) Rules, 2005.
Petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Lucknow Bench of this Court in Ravindra Nath Taigor v. State of U.P. & Ors in Service Single No. 7762 of 2017, wherein an identical issue has come to be settled. Those who have been appointed prior to the abolition of old pension scheme and wherein untrained category and obtained training subsequently, have been held to be entitled to pension under old pension scheme. In the concluding paragraphs of the judgment, this Court has observed thus:
"15. Submission of respondents, that, the petitioners were never appointed prior to the year 2005 and were appointed only after completing their training, after the year 2005, is nothing but a misreading of GO of 2000. The petitioners, as per the aforesaid GO of 2000, were appointed on permanent basis as untrained teachers and were given appointment as trained assistant teachers in basic school after completion of their training. Thus, merely because they were appointed on fixed salary would not make them any less a government employee than the other government employee. The continuity of the employment is reflected in the Government Order itself. Even on failing in the training course, the fact that they would be given appointment as a Class-IV employee, shows the intent of the government to give them a permanent job, one way or other. The respondents could not show anything from any rules, including pension/provident fund rules, which would require petitioners, for any reason, to be treated differently than other permanent employees. The old provisions of the pension and provident fund scheme were applicable to all other employees appointed prior to 01.04.2005. Here petitioners are also appointed on permanent basis, prior to 01.04.2005, as untrained teachers, who cleared their training and thereafter, given appointment as assistant teachers in basic schools. Thus, so far as the petitioners are concerned, there is no dispute that their appointment as trained assistant teachers in basic school are in continuation of their earlier appointment as untrained teachers.
16. Thus, there is no reason to treat them as being appointed for the first time, on completion of their training, after the year 2005. Since the petitioners were appointed prior to the year 2005, they are not impacted by the notifications dated 07.04.2005. They are persons who were appointed permanently before 01.04.2005 and are entitled to be treated at par with all other similarly appointed permanent assistant teachers in basic school, for the purpose of their pension and provident fund benefits. Since, the Government Order dated 15.11.2011 is contrary to the aforementioned rules/directions of the State Government issued under Section 13 of the Basic Eduction Act, hence, the same is not sustainable.
17. Hence, all these writ petitions are allowed and Government Order dated 15.11.2011 is quashed. Petitioners shall be given all the provident fund, pension and other benefits, as are available to other permanent employees of the Board, appointed prior to 01.04.2005."
In view of the above, let the matter of the petitioner be examined at the first instance by Basic Education Office, Jaunpur, the 3rd respondent strictly in accordance with law and in the light of judgment of this Court (supra) within a period of six weeks' from from the date of production of certified copy of this order..
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018/IrfanUddin