Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 60015 of 2017 Petitioner :- Surendra Nath Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Samarath Singh,Sankalp Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for modification in the order dated 25.09.2017 by which he has been granted extension in service for a period of five years.
The petitioner is Principal in the Government Jublee Inter College, Gorakhpur. Petitioner was given State Award for his exemplary services on 05.09.2016.
According to Government order dated 06.05.1982 all those teachers including Principals, who are state awardee or nation awardee will get the extension of two years in service. Later on, the State has issued another Government order on 30.12.2014 providing for grant of extension to the teachers up to 65 years, who have received the State Award or President Award.
The date of retirement of petitioner was 01.04.2017 but being State awardee he submitted an application along with all documents for extension in service in the light of Government Order dated 30.12.2014. The petitioner was refused extension by order dated 05.07.2017 on the ground that his record was inadvertently sent to some other department and not to the concerned State department dealing with issues of extension of teachers who have received State Award, which order was assailed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32488 of 2017 (Surendra Nath Vishwarkarma Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others).
This Court by judgment and order dated 11.08.2017 quashed the order dated 05.07.2017 holding that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a State awardee and he is entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 30.12.2014, and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault of State in sending the records of the petitioner to some other State department instead of the concerned department dealing with the issues of extension of teachers, who are State awardee or President awardee, and accordingly, this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the matter of extension of petitioner afresh.
Pursuant to the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by this Court, the Additional Chief Secretary reconsidered the issue of grant of extension to the petitioner and passed the order dated 25.09.2017 granting the extension to the petitioner from the date of the order i.e. 25.09.2017 and not from the date when the petitioner was retired. In view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner has prayed for modification of the order dated 25.09.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is undisputed on record that the petitioner is a State awardee and is entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 30.12.2014 providing the extension of service for five years of those teachers who are State awardee or President awardee, and that the petitioner had applied within time, and his documents have wrongly been forwarded by the respondents to some other department not concerned with the issue of extension of teachers. There was no fault of petitioner and the respondent ignoring the said fact, has passed the order dated 25.09.2017 granting the extension of the petitioner from the date of order instead of from the date he was to retire.
In the counter affidavit it is averred that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Government Order from the date his extension in service has been granted.
In the opinion of the Court, it was fault on the part of the respondent and not the petitioner that the petitioner was denied illegally extension from the date his retirement was due i.e. 01.04.2017. The respondent also acknowledged the said fact, and accordingly passed an order dated 25.09.2017 extending the benefit of Government Order dated 30.12.2014. In the facts and circumstances, the respondents cannot take advantage of their fault in denying the rightful claim of the petitioner which is due to him under the Government Order dated 30.12.2014 from the date, his retirement is due.
Thus, in view of above, this Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly, modify the order dated 25.09.2017 and directs the respondent-authorities to extend the benefit of extension to the petitioner from 01.04.2017 which is the date of retirement of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Mohit