Disposed

Smt. Kusum Shukla v. Joint Director, Education, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur, and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2023WRIA/15590/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Syllabus: Service law; salary arrears; post-retirement benefits. The petition sought payment of salary arrears and quicker decision on benefits. The High Court accepted the respondent's undertaking to decide the pending representation within two months and disposed of the writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of based on the undertaking by the Learning Standing Counsel to decide the pending representation within two months.

Smt. Kusum Shukla Vs Joint Director… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15590 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Kusum Shukla

¶4

Respondent :- Joint Director, Education, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur, And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archit Mandhyan,Adarsh Bhushan,Rishabh Kumar,Sushant

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia with the following prayer:-

¶8

"i. Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to pay the arrears of salary from year 20.08.1996 to February 2004 as well as other increments/bonus due to the petitioner.

¶9

ii. Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to decide the reprsentation dated 13.09.2019 of the petitioner pending before him (Annexure No.21) within stipulated period as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court."

¶10

Vide order dated 30.09.2019, learned Standing Counsel was directed to file counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and notices were issued to the respondent no.3. Pursuant to the aforesaid, notice was sent through RPAD fixing on 17.12.2019.

¶11

Seen the office report dated 13.12.2019 and from perusal of the aforesaid it transpires that though the notices were deemed to be served but nobody is present to press the matter till date. The case of the petitioner is for the payment of arrears of salary for the period between 20.08.1996 till February, 2004 as well as other increments and benefits due to the petitioner.

¶12

Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis as per the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second Order), 1981 in the year 1996. Thereafter when the salary was not paid to him to the petitioner, he preferred the writ petition being Writ Petition No. 33525 of 1998 which was decided on 15.10.1998 with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools,

¶13

(IInd) Kanpur Nagar to decide the dispute regarding the payment of salary to the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the decision was taken by the District Inspector of Schools, (IInd), Kanpur Nagar on 11.10.1999 rejecting the claim set up by the petitioner.

¶14

Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1250 of 2000 (Smt. Kushum Shukla vs. The District Inspector of Schools (IInd), District Kanpur Nagar & others) which was decided on 22.05.2001 by which the District Inspector of Schools (IInd), Kanpur Nagar was directed to reconsider the matter and take appropriate decision. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, again a decision has been taken by the District Inspector of Schools, (IInd) Kanpur Nagar rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 31.05.2001.

¶15

Aggrieved against the aforesaid, a fresh writ petition was filed by the petitioner being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6279 of 2002 decided on 10.12.2003 by which the writ petition was allowed and the District Inspector of Schools is directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner within a month. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools, (IInd) Kanpur Nagar on 08.01.2004.

¶16

It is argued that after the aforesaid order of approval was passed, petitioner was started to getting his salary and the salary was paid to the petitioner from the date of approval and not from the date the petitioner was initially appointed. Hence representations were made by the petitioner to make the payment of salary for the aforesaid period. It is argued that the petitioner has also been superannuated from his services in the year 2020. It is further argued that while considering the case of the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid representation, the respondent no.2 will also consider the case of the petitioner for the payment of his post retiral benefits. In this connection law is well settled as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Gujarat & Others vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1109 of 2022 decided on 13.10.2020. The order is reads as follows:-

¶17

"It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.

¶18

In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service.

¶19

Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.

¶20

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶21

It is argued that various representations in this regard has been made before the respondent no.2 from time to time. Last representation was made by the petitioner dated 13.09.2019, copy of which is appended as Annexure-21 (page91 of the paper book) to the writ petition. It is argued that considerable time has already been lapsed but till date no decision has been taken. In paragraph-17 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2, it is admitted about the filing of the representation.

¶22

On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that since the representation made by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the respondent no.2. It is further argued by him that respondent no.2/District Inspector of Schools (IInd), Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur will take a decision in the matter, expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the undertaking given by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶24

Order Date :- 30.1.2023 Swati

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Kusum Shukla v. Joint Director, Education, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur, and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kusum Shukla v. Joint Director, Education, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Adarsh Vidyalaya Sabha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anavesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Rojan Ansari Vs State of U P and 9 Others

Krishna College of Law Vs Bar Council of India and Another

C/M Chandrika Singh Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M Shri Prakash Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Basantpur Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others