Allowed

Ravi Shanker Mishra v. State of U.P. through Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024WRIA/2276/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed two writ petitions seeking regularization and pension for the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher appointed in 1993. Quashing impugned orders that rejected the claims, the court remitted the matter to the competent authority to decide regularization under the amended Section 33G of the U.P. Secondary Education Act, 1982.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 10.04.2013 and 14.08.2013 were quashed. Matter remitted to competent authority to pass a fresh order on regularization within six weeks considering Section 33G of the Act, 1982.

Ravi Shanker Mishra Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73186

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2276 of 2013 Petitioner :- Ravi Shanker Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And Ors.

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Pandey,Ashutosh Shahi,Mohd. Ali,Paarth Anand,Paavan Awasthi,Pradeep Chandola Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

alongwith

¶6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5551 of 2013 Petitioner :- Ravi Shanker Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Secondary Edu.Govt.Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Pandey,Ashutosh Shahi,Mohd. Ali,Paavan Awasthi,Parth Anand,Pradeep Chandola Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in Writ A No. 2276 of 2013 and Writ A No. 5551 of 2013 are the same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear both the writ petitions together. For convenience, facts of Writ A No. 2276 of 2013 are being taken.

¶10

Bereft of unnecessary details the facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to have been appointed against short term vacancy of Assistant Teacher on ad-hoc basis on 19.08.1993. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2013. He initially filed Writ Petition No. 655 (SS) of 1994 in re: Ravi Shankar Mishra vs District Inspector of School Raebareli and others praying for payment of salary. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgement and order dated 09.05.2013, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the writ petition, with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Raebareli to consider the case of the petitioner for according approval to the appointment against short term vacancy in question and as

¶11

regards payment of arrears of salary the petitioner was required to move an appropriate application to the Registrar of this Court to release the amount deposited by the respondents.

¶12

The petitioner also claims to have filed Writ Petition No. 6687 (SS) of 2008 in re: Ravi Shanker Mishra vs State of U.P. and others praying for his regularization. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgement and order dated 03.11.2008, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition, with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to look into the matter and to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and grant any relaxation if possible. In pursuance thereto the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 17.07.2009, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition.

¶13

Being aggrieved the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4701 (SS) of 2009 in re: Ravi Shanker Mishra vs State of U.P. and others. The writ court vide judgement and order dated 09.11.2012, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition, quashed the rejection order with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the claim of the petitioner for regularization in strict compliance of the judgement and order passed in Writ Petition No. 6687 (SS) of 2008 dated 03.11.2008. In pursuance thereto the order impugned dated 10.04.2013 had been passed whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Further vide the order dated 23.09.2013, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition, the petitioners' claim for pension has also been declined.

¶14

Needless to mention that in case the petitioner has not been regularized there would not be any occasion for payment of pension.

¶15

The order impugned dated 10.04.2013 has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds including that on

¶16

22.03.2016 an amendment in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1982) has been made whereby Section 33G has been added which provides for regularization of certain more appointments against short term vacancies including those teachers who have been appointed by direct recruitment or promotion on or after 07.08.1993 but not later than 25.01.1999.

¶17

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the order impugned is dated 10.04.2013 yet considering the amendment which has been made in the Act, 1982 more particularly Section 33G which has been inserted with effect from 22.03.2016 and which also includes the teachers appointed on or after 07.08.1993 consequently the petitioner who has been appointed against a short term vacancy on 19.08.1993 would also be entitled for the aforesaid amendment as made under the Act, 1982 which aspect of the matter is required to be considered by the competent authority.

¶18

The other leg of argument is that a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the competent authority has refused to consider the claim of regularization of the petitioner on the ground that as Writ Petition No. 655 (SS) of 1994 is pending for consideration and the date of appointment of the petitioner is 19.08.1993 consequently his claim for regularization can not be considered. The argument is that once there is specific judgement and order passed by writ court in Writ Petition No. 4701 (SS) of 2009 dated 09.11.2012 whereby the competent authority was required to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in strict compliance of the judgement and order dated passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 6687 (SS) of 2008 dated 03.11.2008 consequently the refusal of the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for

¶19

regularization would amount to contempt of court more particularly when both judgement and order passed in Writ Petition No. 6687 (SS) of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 4701 (SS) of 2009 have attained finality.

¶20

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit has justified the order passed by the competent authority by contending that the petitioner has not been found fit for being regularized.

¶21

Further learned Standing Counsel fairly states that with the amendment in the Act 1982 i.e. with the insertion of Section 33G with effect from 22.03.2016 the claim of the petitioner once his appointment is of 19.08.1993 may fall within the ambit of Section 33G of the Act 1982 which aspect of the matter can be considered by the competent authority.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that the petitioner has been appointed on a short term vacancy on 19.08.1993. Despite a spate of petitions that have been filed by the petitioner claiming his regularization and despite the judgement and order in Writ Petition No. 6687 (SS) of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 4701 (SS) of 2009 having attained finality whereby the respondents were required to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization sympathetically yet the competent authority in his wisdom has refused to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization vide order impugned dated 09.04.2013.

¶23

Needless to mention that once there is specific order passed by the writ court court for consideration of regularisation as such the respondents were duty bound to comply with the said judgement in letter and spirit and there cannot be any ground for refusal of consideration of claim of petitioner once both judgements passed by writ court have attained finality.

¶24

Be that as it may the fact of the matter remains that by means of amendment in the Act, 1982 Section 33G has been inserted which provides that the teachers who have been appointed on or after 07.08.1993 but not later than 25.01.2009 against a short term vacancy can be considered for regularization. The amendment being of 27.03.2016 is subsequent to the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for regularisation dated 10.04.2013 and obviously there was no occasion for the competent authority to have considered Section 33G of the Act 1982 when it was not in existence at the time of rejection of claim of the petitioner in April 2013.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petitions are allowed . The order impugned dated 10.04.2013, a copy of which is annexure 1 to Writ A No. 2276 of 2013, is quashed. Also, the order impugned dated 14.08.2013, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the Writ A No. 5551 of 2013, is quashed.

¶26

The matter is remitted to the competent authority to pass a fresh order keeping in view the amended provisions of Section 33G of the Act, 1982 as well as directions issued by writ court in Writ Petition No. 6687 (SS) of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 4701 (SS) of 2009.

¶27

Let the claim for regularization be considered in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶28

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶29

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravi Shanker Mishra v. State of U.P. through Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Shanker Mishra v. State of U.P. through Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and Ors.

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

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Co-Operative Lko. and Anr.

Smt. Arun Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Madhyamaik Edu. Lko and Others

Ram Jatan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chini Udyog and Ganna Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Ji vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others

Neeraj Srivastava vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry. of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Ram Bahadur Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 3 Others