Dismissed

Vinod Kumar Goel v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022SPLA/668/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a pension claim. The court held that the petitioner resigned due to domestic circumstances, not medical incapacity, thus failing to meet eligibility criteria under Clause (iii) of Rule 17 of the U.P. Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, 1964.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by Vinod Kumar Goel is dismissed for failing to elicit evidence of medical incapacity for retirement.

Vinod Kumar Goel Vs State of U.P. and 6… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 668 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Goel

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Bajrang Bahadur Singh,Satya Prakash

¶6

Singh

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

¶9

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 7 and have perused the record.

¶11

This intra-court appeal is against judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.9.2022 passed in Writ-A No.5575 of 2020 by which the writ petition of the petitioner against the order dated 3.3.2020 passed by the committee, constituted by the Joint Director of Education, Region-I, Meerut, negativing the pension claim of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher, has been dismissed.

¶12

It is not disputed that the claim for pension was based on Rule 17 of the U.P. Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, 1964, which reads as under:-

¶13

" 17. An employee shall be eligible for pension on --

¶14

(i) retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or on the expiry of extension granted beyond the superannuation age;

¶15

(ii) voluntary retirement after completing 25 years of qualifying services;

¶16

(iii) retirement before the age of superannuation under a medical certificate of permanent incapacity for further service; and

¶17

(iv) discharge due to abolition of post or closure of an institution due to withdrawal of recognition or other valid causes. "

¶18

It is also undisputed that the petitioner had worked in the Institution initially on temporary basis from 16.10.1967 to 30.6.1971 and, thereafter, he got a fresh appointment on acquiring B.Ed. degree. On his fresh appointment, he worked from 8.7.1972 upto 16.10.1980. The petitioner’s contract of service stood severed on expiry of three months from the date of service of resignation notice dated 17.07.1980.

¶19

The claim for pension was denied by the order dated 3.3.2020 impugned in the writ petition (i.e. Writ-A No. 5575 of 2020). The said order rejected the claim for pension on the ground that neither the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation nor he had sought voluntary retirement completing 25 years of qualifying service and that it was not a case of discharge due to abolition of post or closure of an Institution due to withdrawal of recognition or other valid causes.

¶20

In so far as the claim of the petitioner based upon Clause (iii) of Rule 17 of the U.P. Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, 1964 was concerned, it was found that the resignation application dated 17.7.1980 did not mention resignation on ground of medical condition with regard to permanent incapacity for further service. Consequently, it was found that the claim for pension was not sustainable under any of the clauses of Rule 17 of the Pension Rues 1964.

¶21

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition upon finding that the claim of the petitioner was not sustainable under any of the clauses of Rule 17(supra).

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the representation rejected by the committee, negativing the claim for pension, specifically mentions that resignation was submitted on the ground of medical condition and the said representation was supported by various medical papers therefore, the case of the appellant would be covered by Clause (iii) of the Rule 17 of the Pension Rules 1964.

¶23

We have carefully perused the order dated 3.3.2020 which has been challenged by the appellant in the writ petition. In paragraph3 of the said order the committee has quoted the recital in the resignation letter dated 17.7.1980. The said recital is extracted below: -

¶24

" मኊᮕअपनी ÞĢkjsyw परि�ቝኌ��ति�व屷溆विव्ቕाल䂍䂔क⹉䁴सेवाक�नेमें असम��हूं鋹晍अ�肐崉मኊᮕविन䂍䂔मानुसा��ी नमाहपूव� viuk त्䂍䂔ाग-प्ቔ आपक⹉䁴सेवामे्ቚ ��ु�क��हाहूWa कृप䂍䂔ा�वी का�क�पኮ⒍मु्ሹ क�नेक⹉䁴कृपाक�े鋹晍"

¶25

It is not the case of the appellant that the recital of the contents of the resignation letter in the order impugned in the writ petition dated 3.3.2020 is incorrect.

¶26

2 of 3

¶27

In view of the above, we are satisfied that the resignation submitted by the petitioner as per record was on account of domestic circumstances and not under a medical certificate of permanent incapacity for further service therefore, clause (iii) of Rule 17 (supra) would not apply.

¶28

In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶29

The appeal is dismissed .

¶30

Order Date :- 4.11.2022 N.S.Rathour

¶31

3 of 3

¶32

Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.11.09 16:30:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar Goel v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Goel v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Singh Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Etawah Sahkari Matsya Jivi Samiti Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Komal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Saleem Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Anup Kumar Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Renoo Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others