Court No. - 9
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1178 of 2020 Appellant :- Sumer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pavan Kumar,Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Office objection ignored.
Challenge is to an order dated 27.02.2020 passed in Writ- A No. 62081 of 2011 whereby the rejection of the claim of the appellant for extending the benefits of the contributory GPF Scheme has been upheld. Learned Single Judge found that the option tendered by the appellant was forwarded after the cut off date.
The appellant, a laboratory Bearer in the Department of Chemistry in the Vardhman College, Bijnor, U.P., a grand- in-aid private educational institution, retired w.e.f. 21.7.2001, on attaining the age of superannuation. That the State Government of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 23.1.2020 introduced a GPF Scheme subject to option to be exercised within 90 days i.e. on or before 3.4.2010. The appellant exercised his option on 9.4.2010. However, the management of the school did not forwarded the same to the State Government, because of the writ petition filed by the present appellant against the notice of retirement w.e.f. 31.3.2001. The said petition was later withdrawn by the appellant on 18.5.2010; however forwarding of the option thereafter met with the rejection order dated 4.7.2011. On its challenge, the claim is rejected for the following reasons:-
"Tuning then to the exercise of option by the petitioner, while it is true that papers are said to have been submitted on 09 April 2010, the respondents have taken the position that on that date the writ petition preferred by the petitioner assailing the retirement notice was pending. It was in that backdrop that they had decided not to transmit papers. The Court notes that the petition and the challenge which was raised therein had a clear and direct link to the issue of eligibility of the petitioner to the benefits of the scheme. That petition as noted above had challenged the retirement notice itself. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said writ petition stood withdrawn. In the affidavit which was tendered before the respondents also the petitioner did not take the stand that he had already moved an application for withdrawal. All that was submitted on affidavit was that the petitioner would be taking steps to withdraw the writ petition.
Undisputedly the writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn only on 18 May 2010 whereafter the papers of the petitioner was sent. The papers were received by the State respondents after the cut off date. On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid facts, the Court finds no cause to interfere with the order impugned.
The writ petition is dismissed."
Evidently, the fault is attributed to the appellant, who was pursuing his legal remedy and there was no justification for the management to have withheld the option preferred by the appellant before the cut off date. The order dated 23.01.2010 since made it mandatory that option has to be forwarded through the Principal of Institution concerned and was not to be processed directly, the appellant, as rightly stated, had to depend on the management. And the deliberate act on the part of management in withholding the option will not, in our considered opinion, affect the rightful claim of the appellant.
As the appellant, as evident, forwarded the option much before cut off date, the respondent ought to have accepted the same though belatedly sought by the management.
In view whereof the finding arrived by the learned Single Judge cannot be given the stamp of approval.
Consequently, the impugned order 4.7.2011 passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 27.2.2020 passed in Writ Petition A No. 62081 of 2011 is set aside.
The respondent-State is directed to consider the claim of the appellant on the basis of the option dated 9.4.2010 and pass suitable order within three months from the date of communication of this order.
The appeal stands disposed of finally in above terms. No costs.
Order Date :- 8.1.2021 Ruchi Agrahari (Siddharth,J.) (Sanjay Yadav,J.)