Disposed

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

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023WRIA/10412/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking pension for an ad hoc lecturer regularized in 2016 who superannuated in 2023. The court held it did not decide the merits, directed the Deputy Director of Education to consider the claim independently, and required notice to the management committee.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer representation before the third respondent for independent consideration of the pension claim within two months; notice to be issued to the sixth respondent (Management Committee).

Ratna Shankar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130810

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10412 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Ratna Shankar Pathak 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.

¶6

Heard Sri Hausihla Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Standing Counsel who appears for the respondents no. 1 to 5.

¶7

In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today notices are not being issued to the respondents no. 6.

¶8

The case of the writ petitioner as portrayed in the present petition is that there is an institution by the name and style of B.P. Gujrat Vidya Mandir Inter College, Bhaironath, District Varanasi which is recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (In short Act, 1921) and receiving grant in aid from the State Government and thus the provisions contained under the U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 stands automatically applied therein.

¶9

As per the writ petitioner he being armed with the requisite qualification of M.A., B.Ed. was appointed as Adhoc Lecturer (English) consequent to the issuance of an appointment order dated 15.10.1993 against the vacancy which had fell vacant consequent to the promotion of Sri Vinay Shanker Pandey, Senior Lecturer in English on the post of Officiating Principal.

¶10

Records reveal that the appointment of the writ petitioner as an Adhoc Lecturer (English) was accorded approval by the fourth respondent District Inspector of Schools (Second), Varanasi by virtue of the order dated 6.1.1994 consequent thereto the writ petitioner assumed the charge and continued the function in the said post in question. It has also come on record that on 17.5.2017 the Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi proceeded to issue an order addressed to the fourth respondent to the District Inspector of Schools (Second), Varanasi whereby in terms of the statutory provisions as contained under the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board), Act 1982 under

¶11

Section 33(G) which had been brought into the force w.e.f. 22.3.2016 regularization is accorded to the writ petitioner. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that he superannuated after attaining the age of 62 years on 31.3.2023 after successfully completing 29 years of service.

¶12

Grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the fact that he had even completed the probation period and had served the institution in question without there being any complaint from any four corners but he has been denied pensionary benefits on the pretext that his services have not been regularised and thus he lacks the qualifying service so as to make him entitled for payment of pension.

¶13

Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the second and the third respondent, Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P. Lucknow and Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), Vth Mandal, Varanasi to sanction the pension to the petitioner for the post of Lecturer (English) and pay the same w.e.f. 1.4.2023 for which petitioner is entitled under law and an additional prayer has also been made commanding the respondents to pay 12% interest upon the payment of arrears of pension w.e.f. 1.4.2023 till date.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to buttress his submission has relied upon a Division Bench judgement in the case of Special Appeal Defective No.172 of 2023, State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Singh and another along with connected writ petitions decided on 20.4.2023 so as to contend that in view of the provisions contained under the 1982 Act as referred to above read with the U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employees Contributory Provident Fund, Insurance Pension Rules, 1964 the petitioner becomes entitled for the grant of pension.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that since the writ petitioner has been regularised w.e.f. 22.3.2016, thus he does not has to his credit the qualifying service so as to make him entitled for payment of pension under Rules, thus the stand taken by the Educational Authorities cannot be faulted in any manner whatsoever. He also seeks to distinguish the Division Bench has referred to above.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶17

Undisputedly, the writ petitioner was appointed as an Ad hoc Lecturer (English) on 15.10.1993 approval whereof was granted by the Educational Authorities on 6.1.1994. It is also not in

¶18

dispute that the writ petitioner continued to function on the post in question till his superannuation, however in between on 17.5.2017 the writ petitioner has been regularised on the said post w.e.f. 22.3.2016. It has also not been disputed before this Court that the regularisation order was put to not by any of the party as according to the learned counsels for the parties the same is still in existence.

¶19

Now the question arises as to what would be the impact of the continuance of the writ petitioner on ad hoc basis post regularisation and till superannuation. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement in the case of Surendra Singh (Supra), while seeking to argue that even in fact as per the statutory scheme the petitioner himself has completed the probationary period of one year and he also continued in service post completion of probation period and till retirement thus it cannot be said that the writ petitioner cannot be granted the pensionary benefits as obliviously the continuance of the writ petitioner according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is a valid ground for being considered for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that since the issues have to be addressed at the first instance by the Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), Vth Mandal, Varanasi hence the writ petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an appropriate and a suitable representation annexing the self attested copy of the writ petition before the third respondent who shall on the receipt of the same thereafter calling for the record from the 6th respondent institution or any authority and thereafter proceed to decide the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order keeping in mind the judgement in the case of Surendra Singh (Supra).

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶22

Needless to point out that the writ petition has been disposed off on an ex parte version witout seeking any response and without hearing the sixth respondent thus before proceeding to decide the claim of the writ petitioner, the sixth respondent Committee of Management should also be put to notice so as to enable it to put forward its version.

¶23

Passing of the order today may not be construed to be an

¶24

expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the matter, the third respondent, Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), Vth Mandal, Varanasi shall accord consideration independently without being obsessed or influenced by any of the observation made herein above.

¶25

Order Date :- 4.7.2023 piyush

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratna Shankar Pathak 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

Saurabh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nikunj Rajput @ Nikunj Naiwal Chipi (Minor) Vs Central Board of Secondary Education and 2 Others

Jitendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

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

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