Remanded

Mahaveer Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2022WRIA/19212/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order set aside an authority order rejecting an Assistant Teacher's claim for including ad hoc service in retirement dues. The Court found the authority's reasoning self-contradictory, as regularisation was based on service rendered after financial approval, which fell within the statutory cut-off date.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13.10.2022 was set aside and the matter remitted to the Director of Secondary Education to pass a fresh order within one month.

Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19212 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, U.P. By that order, the petitioner's claim to include ad hoc service rendered from 12.02.1994 to 22.03.2016 in the qualifying service rendered by him for the purpose of computation of retiral dues, has been rejected.

¶7

Perusal of the impugned order reveals, in the first place, the authority has found the initial appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher made on 11.02.1994 to be irregular. Second, it has been specifically recorded, the appointment of the petitioner was granted financial approval on 12.12.1998. Third, it has been found, the petitioner's service was regularised under Section 33-G of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 23.06.2018 w.e.f. 22.03.2016.

¶8

Having recorded the above findings, the Director of Secondary Education has then proceeded to reach a conclusion, the petitioner's initial appointment being contrary to law, he was not entitled to benefit of qualifying service rendered prior to regularisation for the purposes of computation of retiral dues.

¶9

The above order and reasoning recorded therein are self conflicted. Once it has been specifically found, the financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner was granted w.e.f. 12.12.1998 and it is with respect to that date that regularisation appears to have been granted under Section 33-G of the Act, as that date fell within the cut-off date 25.01.1999 (specified under Section 33-G of the Act), the irregular nature of service rendered by the petitioner from 11.02.1994 to 11.02.1998 would remain extraneous to the claim made by the petitioner.

¶10

In other words, for the purposes of computation of qualifying service, the service rendered from 12.12.1998 i.e. date of grant of financial approval (to the initial appointment of the petitioner) would have to be included.

¶11

To allow the order to sustain would be to accept the conflicted conclusions drawn by the authority in the face of regularisation granted to the petitioner on the strength of service rendered since 12.12.1998.

¶12

In view of such patent error noticed in the impugned order, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit, at this stage.

¶13

Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of with the following direction :

¶14

(i) The order dated 13.10.2022 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Director of Secondary Education to pass a fresh order in light of the observation made above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order.

¶15

(ii) Any amount found admittedly payable, be paid out to the petitioner within a further period of two months

¶16

therefrom, failing which, the same shall attract interest liability @ 8% from the date of the amount becoming due till the date of actual payment.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.11.2022 Abhilash

¶18

Digitally signed by ABHILASH SINGH Date: 2022.11.23 16:31:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahaveer Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Vijya Nand Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rashid Hassan Vs Aligarh Muslim University and 3 Others

Dr. Ram Sagar Dubey Vs Amity University and 2 Others

Rohitashva Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandra Bhan Vs U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Sewa Chayan Board and 3 Others