Allowed

Kamlesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024WRIA/10423/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An ad-hoc assistant teacher regularized only shortly before retirement was refused pension for lack of ten years' post-regularization service. The writ petition was allowed, the denial order quashed as contrary to an earlier High Court decision, and fresh orders were ordered.

What did the court decide?

Impugned pension-denial order dated 06.06.2024 quashed; matter remanded to opposite party no.2 for fresh orders.

Kamlesh Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115920

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10423 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulab Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Gulab Chandra Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 to 3.

¶7

Keeping in view the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the opposite party no.4 is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 06.06.2024, passed by the opposite party no.2Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), 5th Division, Varanasi denying payment of pension to the petitioner on the ground that he had not completed ten years' after regularization of his service.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis on the post of Assistant Teacher on 17.07.1994 and the District Inspector of Schools has granted approval to his appointment on 20.07.1994 and the petitioner continuously worked since then. His services were regularized with effect from 22.03.2016.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this court dated 20.12.2018, passed in the case of Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others: Writ-A No.25431 of 2018, wherein this court has held that "Rule 3 of 1964 Rules clearly provides that these Rules shall apply to permanent employees serving in the State aided educational institution of the category specified thereunder, be it run by a local body or a private management, if it is recognized by the competent authority for the purposes of extending of grant-in-aid. It is not in issue that the provisions of Rules of 1964 are attracted in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the Institution is a recognized Institution, wherein salary is being extended to teaching and nonteaching staff by the State by virtue of the provisions contained in the Act of 1971. On the date of his retirement, petitioner was a permanent employee serving in aided educational institution, which is recognized by a competent authority for the purposes of aid. Rule 19(b) of the Act would clearly come to the rescue of the petitioner, inasmuch as it clearly provides that continuous temporary or officiating service followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post, shall also count as qualifying service."

¶11

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not dispute that the petitioner's case is covered by the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Sunita Sharma (Supra) .

¶12

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 06.06.2024, passed by the opposite party no.2-Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), 5th Division, Varanasi having been passed in violation of law laid down by this court in the case

¶13

of Sunita Sharma (Supra) is liable to be quashed, which is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the opposite party no.2 for passing fresh orders in the light of the law laid down by this court in the case of Sunita Sharma (Supra).

¶14

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Ram.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamlesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Devendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Saurabh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Hemant Pratap Singh @ Hemant Thakur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Narayan Shukla vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

C/M of Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram Thru. Its Secy. Ramesh Chandra Tiwari and 2 Others vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Finance Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others