Disposed

Dr. Ram Suman Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Education and Research and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024/7519/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the petition regarding Career Advancement Scheme benefits for teachers. It permitted the opening of a sealed cover containing petitioner no. 2's considered claim and directed that petitioner no. 1's case be considered in the forthcoming schedule with consequential benefits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permission to open the sealed cover containing petitioner no. 2's claim; direction for petitioner no. 1 to have their claim considered with benefits within six weeks.

Dr. Ram Suman Mishra and Another Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74236

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7519 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr. Ram Suman Mishra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Education And Research And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deep Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Singh,Uttam Kumar Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 5.

¶7

There is consensus at bar that this Court has already summed up the facts and the issues involved in the instant case vide orders dated 14.11.2022 & 19.11.2022 which for the sake of convenience are reproduced below:-

¶8

Order date:- 14.11.2022

¶9

Shri Uttam Kumar Verma, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents no.2 to 5, which is taken on record.

¶10

Heard, Shri Deep Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed on adhoc basis. Subsequently, in pursuance of the amendment in the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 and insertion of Section 26A by means of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2006, the petitioners were reqularised by means of the order dated 18.08.2007 and 24.03.2008. Thereafter the petitioners have also been granted upgraded pay scale under the Career Advancement Scheme, however, benefit of designation is not being given though it has been clarified by the government by means of letter dated 04.01.2021 that the petitioners are entitled for benefit of Career Advancement Scheme.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5 submits that

¶13

in view of the judgement and order dated 21.03.2022 passed in Special Appeal No.75 of 2022, State of U.P. and another versus Ram Pratap Singh and others, the government has issued Government Order dated 14.06.2022 clarifying that only those Teachers who have been appointed in accordance with law after facing regular selection are entitled for the benefit for promotion and other financial benefits etc. Therefore, the clarification has been sought from the government by means of letter dated 28.09.2022 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Unless it is clarified by the government as to whether the petitioners are entitled in the present scenario for the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme or not, the petitioners cannot be considered under the C.A.S.

¶14

Shri Gyanendraa Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel prays for three days' time to seek instructions.

¶15

List on 18.11.2022 within top ten cases.

¶16

Order date:- 19.11.2022

¶17

Heard Sri Deep Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.

¶18

This Court had passed the following order on 14.11.2022.

¶19

"Shri Uttam Kumar Verma, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents no.2 to 5, which is taken on record.

¶20

¶21

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5 submits that in view of the judgement and order dated 21.03.2022 passed in

¶23

Special Appeal No.75 of 2022, State of U.P. and another versus Ram Pratap Singh and others, the government has issued Government Order dated 14.06.2022 clarifying that only those Teachers who have been appointed in accordance with law after facing regular selection are entitled for the benefit for promotion and other financial benefits etc. Therefore, the clarification has been sought from the government by means of letter dated 28.09.2022 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Unless it is clarified by the government as to whether the petitioners are entitled in the present scenario for the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme or not, the petitioners cannot be considered under the C.A.S.

¶24

Shri Gyanendraa Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel prays for three days' time to seek instructions.

¶25

List on 18.11.2022 within top ten cases. "

¶26

Thereafter the following order was passed on 18.11.2022.

¶27

"Shri Alok Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel submits that he could not get the instructions. He prays for further time to seek instructions.

¶28

Shri Deep Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been regularized under the amended Section 26-A of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam 2006, therefore the judgment and order dated 21.03.2022 passed in Special Appeal No.75 of 2022 is not applicable on the petitioners because in the said case the issue was as to whether the Research Associates and Senior Research Associates who have not been appointed under Para 4(d) of Chapter 13 of the First Statute are Teachers or not, whereas the petitioners have been regularized under the statutory Rules and a clarification has already been issued by the Government on 04.01.2021 that the petitioners are eligible for Career Advancement Scheme. He also submits that the petitioners have already got the pay scale of the post, on which the petitioners are to be granted the benefit under the Career Advancement Scheme therefore only the designation is to be given. The assessment/Interview for granting the benefit under the Career Advancement Scheme is going on before the University, therefore the petitioners may also be permitted to participate in the same provisionally otherwise the petitioners will suffer irreparably. On the request of Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel put up tomorrow i.e. 19.11.2022 in terms of earlier order to enable him to seek complete instructions."

¶29

Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, submits that in pursuance of the letter dated 20.09.2022, by means of which clarification has been sought by the

¶30

University, the informations in regard to the educational qualification etc. of teachers who have been regularised has been called by means of letter dated 12.11.2022 to examine as to whether they are entitled for the benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme or not and on receipt of the reply from the University, the response of the letter dated 20.09.2022 shall be sent. However, he submits that there is no instruction that the letter dated 04.01.2021 has been withdrawn or modified till date.

¶31

Learned counsel for the University submits that response to the letter dated 12.11.2022 shall be sent by the University within a week. On receipt of the reply from the University, the decision shall be taken by the State Government within a period of two weeks, if there would be no discrepancy in information, and the same shall be informed to the University as stated by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶32

In view of above, since the process of assessment is going on, the petitioner shall be considered in the ongoing process of assessment under the Career Advancement Scheme in accordance with law. However, the result shall not be declared and implemented till further orders of this Court.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents pray for and are granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit.

¶34

A week's time thereafter shall be available to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶35

List in the week commencing 19.12.2022.

¶36

A certified/ authenticated copy of this order shall be provided to the learned counsels for the parties on payment of usual charges today."

¶37

It is contended that in pursuance to the aforesaid orders, the State Government has passed an order dated 13.12.2022, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the application for disposal of the writ petition dated 04.11.2024 per which consideration on a case to case basis is to be done by the Vice Chancellor, the respondent no. 2. This fact is also admitted by Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 5.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 19.11.2022, the consideration of the claim of the petitioner no. 2 has been made and has been kept in sealed cover. It is contended that as the consideration has already been made consequently, no further consideration would now be required and as such, the sealed cover can be opened by the respondents.

¶39

Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to

¶40

5 states that in terms of the order dated 13.12.2022 as issued by the State Government it is the petitioners who are required to put up their case before the respondent no. 2.

¶41

Considering the aforesaid as well as the detailed orders as passed by this Court dated 14.11.2022 & 19.11.2022 and the consideration of the claim of the petitioner no. 2 having already been made and the State Government having passed an order dated 13.12.2022 per which the case of the petitioner no. 1 would have to be considered on a case to case basis by the Vice Chancellor of the University as such, the instant writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner no. 1 to put up his case before the respondent no. 2 within three days from today. In case, the petitioner no. 1 puts up his case before the respondent no. 2 then the same would be considered in accordance with law by the respondent no. 2 in terms of the order dated 13.12.2022.

¶42

As the claim of the petitioner no. 2 has already been considered and kept in sealed cover such, the sealed cover shall also be opened in accordance with law by the Board of Management provided there is no legal impediment.

¶43

The claim of the petitioner would be considered in the forthcoming schedule with all consequential benefits.

¶44

Let such a consideration be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶45

A certified/ authenticated copy of this order shall be provided to the learned counsels for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.

¶46

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Pachhere/-

¶47

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

Dr. Ram Suman Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Education and Research and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ram Suman Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Education and Research and 4 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

Taruna Saxena Vs Union of India Thru. It Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications, and 2 Others

C/M Lala Ram Kumar Vidyalaya Patranga Thru. Minister Ajay Kumrey Tivari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Kshetrapal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Shankar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Secondary Education), Lko. and Others

Rajiv Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Energy and Ors.

Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Agriculture Edu. and RESEARCHandORS