Disposed

Dr.Seema Verma v. State of U.P.through Principal Secy.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023WRIA/2000659/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regularization and salary benefits in a post she held as Lecturer. Subsequent legislative amendments enabled regularization, which was effected in 2005. The court disposed of the petition noting services were regularized and benefits released upon her 2022 retirement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of in order that consequential relief has already been explained to the petitioner.

Dr.Seema Verma Vs State of U.P.through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42982

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2000659 of 2002

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr.Seema Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Principal Secy. Counsel for Petitioner :- P.Chandra,Ashok Kumar Singh,Radhika Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos.1,2 and 3 to treat the petitioner as having been duly regularized w.e.f. 26.5.1997 and to pay her salary in the revised scale of pay forthwith with all consequential benefits of regularization including payment of senior grade, selection grade, reader's grade as the case may be with further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to forthwith disburse the salary payable to the petitioner pursuant to the regularization made by the regularization committee and the sanction passed by the State Government on 14.7.1998 without awaiting any further direction from the Director, Higher Education, U.P. or any other authority subordinate to the opposite party no.1 i.e. the State Government.

¶8

Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner appointed on the post of Lecturer, Political Science in Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Kanpur till 30.6.1992 or till an incumbent is selected by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, whichever is earlier. No candidate having been selected, the petitioner continued on the said post till date. On 22.11.1991 promulgation of Ordinance inserting Section 31-C in U.P. Higher Service Education Commission Act providing regularization of ad-hoc teachers subject to the conditions stipulated in the said Ordinance. The Ordinance, since replaced by Act No.2 of 1992. The Regularization Committee held that the petitioner did not meet the required qualification. hence her services were terminated.

¶9

The petitioner assailed the termination by means of Writ Petition No.8529 (SB) of 1992. The Hon'ble Court by order

¶10

dated 9.12.1992 stayed the operation of order of termination and directed the Regularization Committee to consider the matter of regularization afresh. The said Committee, however, did not consider the case of the petitioner as apparently an amendment in Act No.2 of 1992 was proposed. The amending Act came through relaxing terms and conditions of the candidates as a consequence whereof the petitioner became eligible for regularization.

¶11

On the basis of recommendations of the Regularization Committee, the Director, Higher Education by his communication dated 19.5.1998 addressed to the opposite party no.1 sought approval of the State Government to the said commendations of Regularization Committee. Communication of the State government indicating that approval for regularization pursuant to recommendations made by the Regularization Committee already accorded by the State Government.

¶12

The Director, Higher Education vide his order dated 28.11.1998 passed formal orders of regularization to a chosen few from the list of approved Lecturers. The petitioner though being on serial no.46 has not been treated as regularized and has thus been subjected to hostile discrimination. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶13

During pendency of the writ petition, the services of the petitioner have been regularized vide order dated 30.6.2005; on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 30.6.2022; and consequential benefits have been released in her favour.

¶14

In view of the above, this writ petition is finally disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 GK Sinha

¶16

Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr.Seema Verma v. State of U.P.through Principal Secy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Seema Verma v. State of U.P.through Principal Secy.

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

Dr. Narendra Shanker Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P.Thru Secy. Medical and Health Lucknow and Another

Gopal Bihari Mehrotra Vs State of U.P.Thru Secy. Minor Irrigation and Rural Engg.and Anr.

Yakub Hussain and 2 Others Vs the State of U.P.Thru Secy. Deptt.of P.W.D. Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Prem Chand Vs the State of U.P.Thr. Prin Secy Personnel and 3 Ors.

Ram Bahal Verma Vs Dy. Registrar Coop. Socs. and 4 Others

Santosh Kumar Awashthi Vs State of U.P. through Secy.Forest Lucknow and Another