Allowed

Hari Om Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2022WRIA/17349/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing orders that denied pension to a retired teacher. Relying on Rule 19(b) of the UP Rules 1964 and Sunita Sharma, the court held that ad-hoc service counts as qualifying service and directed payment of pension with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; pension calculated from ad-hoc appointment date with 6% interest ordered; 12% interest for delay added.

Hari Om Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17349 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Hari Om Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arpan Srivastava,Neelabh Srivastava,Sr. Advocate, Sri Anil Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Bhushan,Amit Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Abhishek Bhushan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Arpan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶6

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 14.05.2018 passed by respondent no. 3 whereby claim of the petitioner for grant of pension from 30.05.2017 to the initial appointment including ad-hoc service prior to his regularisation on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade with effect from 22.03.2016 has been denied to him.

¶7

The facts of the petition are that one, Kailash Chand Gupta, was working as L.T. Grade teacher in Janta Inter College, Fatehabad, Agra, duly recognized institution under the Intermediate Education Act and receiving grant-in-aid from the State of U.P. On the aforesaid vacancy the petitioner was appointed as L.T. Grade teacher and approval of his appointment was accorded by the D.I.O.S., Agra, respondent no. 3, on 27.06.1975. The petitioner's services were regularised by the Deputy Director of Education on 30.05.2017 with effect from 22.03.2016 by the Joint Director of Education, Agra Division, Agra. The petitioner has retired on 31.03.2017. The general provident fund was deducted from the date of his appointment but his pension has not been paid to him on the ground that from the date of regularisation i.e., 22.03.2016 to the date of retirement i.e., on 31.03.2017, he has not completed 10 years of qualifying service.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel filed counter affidavit wherein the impugned orders have been supported on the ground that from the regularisation of services of the petitioner he has clearly not completed 10 years of qualifying services and therefore he is not entitled to any relief.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that payment of pension to the teachers of recognized privately managed

¶10

institution is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964. Rule 19(b) of the Rules of 1964 reads as under:-

¶11

"19.(b) Continuous temporary or officiating service followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall also count as qualifying service."

¶12

This Court in the case of Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, passed in Writ Petition No. 25431 of 201 8, decided on 20.12.2018, after examining the law has been pleased to observed as under:-

¶13

".........

¶14

In view of the discussions aforesaid, it is clear that petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits under the Rules of 1964 and for such purposes the adhoc continuance from 1996-2016 followed with regularization would have to be counted towards qualifying service for sanction and fixation of pension. A mandamus is issued accordingly to the respondents for grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Necessary order in that regard could be passed by the competent authority within a period of three months. All consequential benefits would also be extended to the petitioner within a further period of two months thereafter."

¶15

The aforesaid judgment has also been affirmed with dismissal of special appeal. In such circumstances the claim of petitioner for payment of pension shall be dealt with keeping in view the provisions contained under Rule 19(b) of the Rules of 1964 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra).

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to dispute the same.

¶17

The orders dated 04.07.2018 passed by respondent no. 2 and 14.05.2018 passed by respondent no. 3 are hereby quashed.

¶18

The respondents aforesaid are directed to calculate and make payment of pension to the petitioner taking into account his initial date of ad-hoc appointment on the part of L.T. Grade teacher since 27.06.1995 along with six percent interest within six weeks from today.

¶19

The writ petition stands allowed .

¶20

In case, payment of pension is not made within the time provided the petitioner shall be entitled to get 12 percent interest on the due amount of pension. The state shall be free to recover the same from the public servant / servants found responsible for the delay in making payment of pension to the petitioner.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.4.2022 Rohit

¶22

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.04.28 18:42:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hari Om Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Om Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyanka Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Committee of Management, Seth Teerath Prasad Rameshwar Prasad Purv Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. 5 Others

Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Kailasi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Swati Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.