Allowed

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and Others v. Mohd. Sharif Khan and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2023/33/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application, the Court allowed the review of a Special Appeal order that had granted pension to a retired teacher. The Court held that since the applicant served in a Government aided educational institution, the specific 1964 Rules apply, not the 2021 State Act. Consequently, the original Special Appeal dismissing the pension claim was deemed erroneous and set aside.

What did the court decide?

Review application allowed; Special Appeal No. 678 of 2013 dismissed; no order as to costs.

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:48088-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 33 of 2023 Applicant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. And Others

¶4

Opposite Party :- Mohd. Sharif Khan And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya J. Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.

¶6

This is an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 28.01.2023, whereby the Special Appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2021 allowing Writ Petition No. 17952 (S/S) of 2021 was allowed.

¶7

The review-applicant had retired on 31.03.2020 after serving as a Lecturer in a Government Aided Educational Institution. His claim of pension was denied and, therefore, he had filed Writ Petition No. 17952 (S/S) of 2021. The Hon’ble Single Judge allowed the reviewapplicant’s claim for grant of pensionary benefit after relying upon a judgment in the case of State of U. P. v. Mangli Prasad Verma & Ors. Special Appeal (Defective) No. 678 of 2013, decided on 13.09.2017.

¶8

The Special Appeal filed by the State was allowed on the ground that the Single Judge had not referred to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 2021). The aforesaid order has been sought to be reviewed on the ground that the review-applicant was working as a Teacher in a State Aided Educational Institution and he was not in the service of the State Government. Therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 will not be applicable on the review-applicant and his rights will

¶9

Page 1 of 3

¶10

be governed by U. P. State Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund-Pension Rules, 1964, which provides for counting of continuous, temporary or officiating service towards qualifying service.

¶11

The learned counsel for the review-applicant has relied upon a judgment dated 20.04.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad in State of U. P. and 2 others versus Surendra Singh and another , Special Appeal Defective No. 172 of 2023. The issue involved in those cases was whether the services rendered on adhoc basis should be counted as qualifying service as per the U. P. State Aided Educational Institution Employees Contributory Provident Fund, Pension Rules, 1964. While deciding the issue, the Division Bench held that:-

¶12

“the Rules, 1964 are special provisions applicable to the teachers and non-teaching employees serving in State Aided Educational Institutions in the State of U. P. The general provisions of U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 defining the term ‘qualifying service’ in U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 w.e.f 01.04.1961, applicable to ‘officers’ defined in Rule 3(6) of the Rules, 1961, which means the Government servant having a lien on permanent pensionable post under “the Government,” would not be applicable to the writ petitioners.”

¶13

The fact that the review-applicant is not in the service of the Government, had escaped attention of this Court while allowing the Special Appeal filed by the State. As the review-applicant was in the service of a Government aided educational institution, his services will be governed by the provisions of the U.P. State Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident FundPension Rules, 1964.

¶14

In view of the law laid down in State of U.P. v. Surendra Singh (supra), it is clear that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 1 of 2021 will not be applicable in the case of the review-applicant-respondent.

¶15

Page 2 of 3

¶16

Therefore, we are of the considered view that the judgment dated 28.01.2023 is erroneous and it needs to be reviewed.

¶17

The review application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶18

The Special Appeal had been allowed on the sole ground that the Hon’ble Single Judge had not taken into consideration the provisions of U. P. Act No. 1/2021. As the provisions of U. P. Act No. 1 of 2021 are not applicable to teachers employed in Government aided educational institutions, the sole ground taken in the Special Appeal is without force and, therefore, the Special Appeal is hereby dismissed . However, there will be no orders as to costs.

¶19

Order Date - 21.7.2023 Pradeep/-

¶20

Page 3 of 3

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and Others v. Mohd. Sharif Khan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and Others v. Mohd. Sharif Khan and Another

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

Mata Prasad Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Urmila Chaudhary Vs Savita Devi and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl.Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others Vs Ram Kesh Sharma

Rajesh Vs Uco. Bank Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director , Sarani and Another