Petitioner sought GPF allotment for pre-regularization service in a recognized institution. Court directed authorities to consider a fresh representation within eight weeks in light of cited precedents.
Petitioner must submit a fresh representation to the first respondent within eight weeks for disposal of the matter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8760 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ganesh Singh Respondent :- District Inspector Of Schools, Sambhal, And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The services of the petitioner had been regularized on the post of Lecturer Geography w.e.f. 22.03.2016 by order dated 09.08.2016 while being in employment in S.M. Inter College, Chandausi, Sambhal, a recognized institution under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and to which U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, 1982 is also applicable.
The petitioner claims that he had completed continuous regular service so as to entitle him to G.P.F. He made representation to the authorities that he is ready and willing to deposit the management contribution along with interest in terms of judgment of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 678 of 2013 State of U.P. Vs. Mangali Prasad Verma and two others but no heed is being paid to his request and hence the instant petition.
The relevant portion of the judgment in Special Appeal in case of Mangali Prasad Verma (supra) is reproduced herein-below:-
"We may, however, clarify that the Government Order dated 28.1.2004 which was so heavily relied upon by the State Government does not alter the legal position in any manner inasmuch as, the applicability of Rules 1964 is not depended upon any declaration being made by the Governor or by the State Government. If a teacher was working in an aided institution prior to the date of his retirement provisions of rules 1964 become applicable by operation of law. The manner of counting the qualifying service stands explained under the Government Order dated 26.7.2001.
We may also clarify that the teachers and employees of institutions which are brought on the grant-in-aid for the first time on or subsequent to 1.4.2005 would be covered by the new scheme enforced on 1.4.2005 and this judgment will have no application in their case.
We may notice that similar view has taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. And 6 Ors Vs. Shir Krishna Prasad Yadav and 13 Ors being Special No.228 of 2016 decided on 24.5.2017.
In view of the aforesaid, we find no illegality in the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, it is accordingly, affirmed. The Appeal is
Dismissed."
He has also placed reliance on judgment of a learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 24267 of 2018 Smt. Mithlesh Vs. District Inspector of Schools and others decided on 16.11.2018.
The submission is that the services rendered prior to regularization are entitled to be counted as qualifying service, and therefore, the petitioner should be allotted GPF account number.
Learned Standing Counsel states that the grievance of the petitioner could be examined by the first respondent.
Accordingly, the instant petition is dispose of with liberty to the petitioner to approach to first respondent with a certified copy of this order and a fresh representation and in which event, he shall pass a speaking order on the same after taking into consideration, the directions issued by this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 678 of 2013 quoted above and the judgment in Writ A No. 24267 of 2018 Smt. Mithlesh Vs. District Inspector of Schools decided on 16.11.20018 expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 27.5.2019 M. ARIF
2 issues framed by the court
Whether services rendered by a petitioner prior to regularization of his post are entitled to be counted as qualifying service for GPF account allotment.
Whether the petitioner should be allotted a GPF account number given his willingness to deposit management contribution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ganesh Singh
District Inspector Of Schools, Sambhal
3 Others
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
