Allowed

Daya Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 May 2024WRIA/3549/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction for grant of pension to a superannuated teacher of an aided educational institution. The Court held the issue was governed by prior judgments in State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Singh and related matters, directing the respondent to decide the claim in light of those precedents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide pension claim within eight weeks in light of earlier judgments.

Daya Ram Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36810

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3549 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Daya Ram Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshuman Singh Rathore,Atul Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶7

On the consent of both the parties, this matter is decided finally at the admission stage itself.

¶8

The present petition is preferred seeking writ of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension ignoring the order dated 01.05.2019, in light of the observations made by this Court in Writ A No. 5642 of 2020 which was subsequently confirmed in Special Appeal Defective No. 158 of 2021 and SLP (C) No. 13644 of 2021.

¶9

The contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed against an ad-hoc vacancy and later on financial concurrence was also accorded vide order dated 16.09.2000 by District of Inspector Schools concerned. He next added that the service of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 18.04.2022 and he superannuated on 31.03.2019.

¶10

Further argument of Counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner after his superannuation sought for the post retiral benefits then, an order was passed on 01.05.2019 which is amount to denial of the post retiral dues. He further contends that the petitioner is entitled for the pension as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institution Employees' Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1964). He also added that in fact, a Government Order was issued on 12.12.2023, which is not applicable in case of the petitioner, as the same is not having the retrospective effect at all and the

¶11

petitioner has been retired much prior i.e. in the year 2019. Therefore, submission is that the opposite party no. 2 may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension ignoring the order dated 01.05.2019 and the Government Order dated 12.12.2023.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that so far as Section 19(b) of the Rules, 1964 is concerned, the same provides the benefit of pension to the teachers of unaided institution but thereafter it has been amended on 12.12.2023 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

¶13

Considering upon the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the controversy has already been put to rest vide judgment and orders passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 172 of 2023 and connected matters, State of U.P. and Others Vs. Surendra Singh and Another, as also, in Special Appeal Defective No. 976 of 2023, State of U.P. and Others Vs. Mahesh Chandra Sharma and Another, and further in Writ A No. 2202 of 2024, Ram Ji Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others . In light of the aforementioned judgments and orders, the petitioner is entitled for the same relief.

¶14

In view of the above, the opposite party no. 2 is hereby directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension while keeping in view the judgment and order mentioned herein above within a period of eight weeks, from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶15

The decision taken by the authority concerned shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.5.2024 Lokesh Kumar

¶17

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

Daya Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dileep Kumar Pathak Vs Rishi Vashishtha Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. Thru Secy. and Ors.

Rajeev Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Sugar Industries and Cane Deptt. and 4 Others

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Education and Research and 5 Others

National Mahila Mahavidyalaya Thru Its Manager and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.and Ors.

Mukhtar Husain Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Secondary Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.andORS.

Neeraj Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others