Disposed

Kashi Nath Prasad v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023WRIA/10410/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J. disposed of two connected writ petitions regarding regularization of adhoc teachers and pension claims. The High Court refused to adjudicate on merits, directed the competent authority to consider the petitioners' claims for regularization and pension, and granted liberty to file appropriate representations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of without adjudication on merits; direction issued to competent authority to consider claim for regularization and pension within three months; liberty granted to file represe

Kashi Nath Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132873

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10410 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Kashi Nath Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hausihla Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. Order on Amendment Application :-

¶6

Today, Sri H.P. Mishra, has filed a copy of the amendment application after serving an advance copy upon the learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the same.

¶8

The amendment application is allowed.

¶9

Let the necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day.

¶10

Since the amendment application has been filed in the Court today directly, thus office is directed to assign number to the amendment application.

¶11

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 S Rawat

¶12

. . . . .

¶13

Court No. - 35

¶14

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10410 of 2023

¶15

Petitioner :- Kashi Nath Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hausihla Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶16

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶17

Order on Writ :-

¶18

Amendment application filed in Court today after serving an advance copy to the learned Standing Counsel is taken on record. Since, common question of law is involved in both the petitions, thus with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is being decided at the fresh stage itself.

¶19

For the sake of brevity, the Writ Petition No. 10410 of 2023 (Kashi Nath Prasad vs State of U.P. and Others) is treated as a leading writ petition and the Writ A No. 10411 of 2023 (Ram Sagar Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others) is treated as a connected writ petition.

¶20

Heard Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions as well as Sri H.K. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondent nos.1 to 5 in both the writ petitions.

¶21

In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the sixth respondent, in both the writ petitions, Committee of Management, Mahamana Malviya Inter College, Bachhrawan, District – Varanasi.

¶22

The facts of the case as worded in the leading writ petition preferred by Sri Kashi Nath Prasad, son of Late Ram Karan Ram are that the sixth respondent institution, namely Mahamana

¶23

Malviya Inter College, Bachhrawan, District – Varanasi is a recognized and aided institution under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and receiving in grant in aid from the State Government and thus the provisions of U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 stands applicable.

¶24

The writ petitioner in the leading writ petition claims to have possess the requisite qualification, M.Sc., L.T. (Basic) and armed with the said qualification he applied for appointment as an Adhoc Assistant Teacher, (Biology) in L.T. Grade and after facing the selections, he was issued an appointment order on 30.06.1993 by the sixth respondent institution and he assumed the charge on 05.07.1993.

¶25

Since, the writ petitioner along with the other counterparts including the writ petitioner in the connected writ petition were not accorded financial approval, so a Writ Petition No. 54957 of 2003 (Kashi Nath Prasad and another vs. State of U.P. and others) was preferred before this Court, which came to be disposed of on 15.12.2003 with a direction to the fourth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi to accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner herein.

¶26

It is further claimed that on 29.03.2004, an order has been passed by the fourth respondent, District Inspector of School (Second), Varanasi, whereby approval had been granted with respect to the adhoc appointment as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade till regularly selected candidate from the commission funds. In paragraph no.9 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has further contended that the writ petitioner continued to discharge the duties on the said post as his joining was not disturbed by any of the regularly selected candidates. It is further the case of the writ

¶27

petitioner that he superannuated on 31.03.2023 after attaining the age of 62 years and he was also made entitled to the payment of G.P.F and other amounts.

¶28

Insofar, as the facts relating to the connected writ petition is concerned, they are more or less the same as the writ petitioner in the connected writ petition claims to be possessing M.A., (Math), B.Ed. qualification and he also appointed as Adhoc Assistant Teacher on 30.06.1993 and he assumed the charge on 05.07.1993, as he was not being granted financial approval, so he along with the writ petitioner in the leading writ petition preferred Writ Petition No. 54957 of 2003 (Kashi Nath Prasad and others vs. State of U.P.), which came to be disposed of on 15.12.2003 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi to accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner and eventually on 29.03.2004, appointment on adhoc basis was accorded approval till the regularly selected candidate joined. In paragraph no. 9 of the connected writ petition, averment has been made that the writ petitioner continued to function in the said post and his appointment had not been disturbed by any regularly selected candidate and he also superannuated after completion of 62 years on 31.03.2021. In the similar fashion, averment has been made that the writ petitioner in the connected writ petition has also been granted G.P.F. in that regard.

¶29

The grievance of the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions is with regard to the fact that they have not been accorded consideration either for regularization in terms of the act and the rules framed therein-under. Consequent thereto they have been denuded with the pensionary benefit in that regard.

¶30

Initially, when both the writ petitions were presented before this

¶31

Court, then it was noticed by this Court that the provision with regard to the regularization sought to be invoked was wrongly mentioned in the prayer clause. The matter was listed yesterday and on the request of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the writ petition has been posted today and after serving the advance copy of the amendment application, the amendment application has been filed, which has been allowed by this Court itself as there has been no opposition on behalf of the respondents.

¶32

Primarily, the entire case of the writ petitioner hinges upon the fact that in view of the statutory provision contained under Section 33(C) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, the competent authority is enjoined and under obligation to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization, particularly in view of the fact that as per the Rule 33-C regularization of certain appointments are to be made when the mode of recruitment was by promotion or direct recruitment on or after 14th May, 1991 but not later than 6th August, 1993 on adhoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section - 18. The said provision further stipulates that not only eligibility but suitability is also to be accorded consideration in that regard.

¶33

The principle submission of the writ petitioner is that once the writ petitioner might be on adhoc basis was working on the post in question without any interruption continuously till his superannuation, then with the advent of the provisions as referred above, the writ petitioner are entitled to be considered for regularization.

¶34

It is the further submission of the writ petitioner that even otherwise merely because the writ petitioner has not been regularised would not be a ground to denude the writ petitioner for

¶35

payment of pension, as the same is not depended upon any regularisation and in this regard also relies upon the judgment in the case of State of U.P. and Others vs. Surendra Singh and others in Special Appeal Defective No. 172 of 2023, decided on 20.04.2023 following the judgment in the case of Sunita Sharma vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others in Writ A No. 25431 of 2018, decided on 20.12.2018, affirmed by a Special Appellate Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 181 of 2020, State of Uttar Pradesh vs Smt. Sunita Sharma, vide judgment and order dated 11.06.2020.

¶36

Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization of his services in terms of Section - 33-C of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and to pay arrears of pension with effect from 01.04.2023 as the date may be.

¶37

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner claims to have continued on the post in question since the year, 1993, while being accorded joining on 05.07.1993 and he further claims to have superannuated in the year 2023 and 2021 respectively. Though the writ petitioner might have continued on the post in question on adhoc basis but until and unless these issues are addressed by the competent authorities the writ petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this regard as the best option available is that a direction be issued to the Director of Education, (Madhyamik), U.P, Lucknow to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization and consequent payment of pension.

¶38

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that no fruitful purpose will be solved in detaining the writ petition on both and according to him he does not propose to file any response.. However, the writ

¶39

petitioner may approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievances by filing an appropriate representation along with the self attested copy of the writ petition.

¶40

To the said submission learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection, as he gracefully accepts the same.

¶41

Having considered the rival submission of the parties as well as this time taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of without seeking any response from the respondents granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an appropriate, comprehensive representation along with the self attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P., Lucknow and in case for taking decision on the claim of the writ petition for regularization and payment of pension.

¶42

In case, the second respondent is of the opinion that the matter needs to be addressed by any other authority, then the papers be transmitted to the such authority and a written communication be made to the writ petitioner in both the writ petition, so as to enable them to put forward their stand. It is further clarified that since the writ petitions is being decided on ex-parte party version without seeking any response, thus the authority who proposes to decide the controversy in question shall put to notice the said respondent, Committee of Management, who shall also be heard in this matter.

¶43

Needless to point out that passing of this order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated on the merits of the matter.

¶44

The competent authority while deciding the claim of the writ petitioner shall also consider the import and the impact of the statutory enactments as well as the judgment holding the field as

¶45

on day. The said exercise is to be completed within a period of three months from today.

¶46

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶47

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 S Rawat

¶48

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kashi Nath Prasad v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashi Nath Prasad v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Dr.Mayank Jain and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ratna Shankar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Arun Kumar Shahi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Sagar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Prateek Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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