Allowed

Mahendra Nath Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Education and Ors.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2024WRIA/37939/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejected leave encashment claim. Bench allowed petition and remitted the matter to the competent authority to pass a fresh order considering Clause 8 of GO dated 24.12.1997, which grants D.I.E.T teachers benefits comparable to Basic Shiksha Parishad teachers.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Matter remitted to respondent No. 2 to pass fresh order considering relevant Government Order within six weeks.

Mahendra Nath Srivastava Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80930

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37939 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- Mahendra Nath Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Education And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Kant,Suresh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

1 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2 . Under challenge is the order dated 12.12.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby claim of the petitioner for payment of Leave Encashment has been rejected.

¶7

3 . Bereft of unnecessary details the facts are that the petitioner, who was appointed in the year 1997 against a vacant post in District Institute of Education & Training as Lecturer, was relieved on 31.07.2015 after competing the age of 60 years. Thereafter, the petitioner joined his parent department on 01.08.2015 on the post of Head Master, Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ekauna, Mazidia, District Shravasti in Basic Shiksha Parishad Department where the age of retirement was 62 years. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2018. The petitioner claims payment of leave encashment of 300 days as specifically recorded in the service book. His claim has been turned down by means of the impugned order dated 12.12.2018 and hence the petition.

¶8

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Government Order dated 24.12.1997, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, more particularly Clause 8 of the said Government Order which categorically provides that the teachers working in D.I.E.T. would be entitled to all benefits as admissible to the teachers working in Basic Shiksha Parishad including the leave encashment benefit.

¶9

5 . The contention is that although a reference has been given to the

¶10

aforesaid Government Order dated 24.12.1997 but the competent authority has failed to consider the provisions of Clause 8 which categorically provides for grant of all the benefits including the Leave Encashment as are admissible to the teachers working in Basic Shiksha Parishad.

¶11

6 . This Court vide order dated 08.01.2024 had required the learned Standing Counsel to seek specific instructions in this regard.

¶12

7 . Today, Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions dated 29.11.2024 sent by the Principal of D.I.E.T. Payagpur, District Bahraich states that since the petitioner has already been extended 20 percent extra pay during the services in the DIET consequently he is not entitled for payment of any leave encashment. He further states that this aspect of the matter has already been considered while passing the order impugned.

¶13

8 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it emerges that after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation while working in D.I.E.T., he worked in an institution of Basic Shiksha Parishad and thereafter retired on attaining the age of 62 years. The Government Order dated 24.12.1997 categorically provides that the teachers working in D.I.E.T. would be entitled to all benefits as admissible to the teachers working in Basic Shiksha Parishad including the leave encashment benefit.

¶14

9 . Perusal of the impugned order along with the instructions dated 29.11.2024 indicate that this aspect of the matter including Clause 8 of the Government Order dated 24.12.1997 has not been considered by the competent authority while passing the order impugned. Thus the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶15

10 . The petition is allowed . The matter is remitted to the respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order considering the Government Order dated 24.12.1997. Let an order be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.12.2024/prateek

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahendra Nath Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Nath Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Diwakar Joshi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Edu. Lko and 2 Others

Rama Shankar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Cane Development Sugar Industries Lko and 6 Others

Guru Sharan Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sugar Industries U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Phool Chand Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Ashish Kumar Shukla Vs Deputy Managing Director (Cdo) State Bank of India Bhawan Madame Kama Road and 4 Others

Ram Krishna Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Mini. of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others