State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Govt. Lko and 2 Others vs Dr. Dhan Prakash Goel and 8 Others

This appeal is directed against order dated 16.07.2024 passed in Writ - A No. 16223 of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents has been allowed, order dated 20.01.2020, whereby respondents' claim for revision of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in terms of Government Order dated 28.02.2009 and the consequent revision of pension was denied has been quashed and directions have been given to the appellants to revise pay of the respondents w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and accordingly, revise pensionary benefits making payment within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of the order is served. Further directions have been given that the benefit shall be subject to final decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Dr. Anand Pratap Singh and others : Civil Appeal No(s). 6343 of 2021 . The order was corrected on 09.08.2024 by correcting the number of writ petition, whose judgment was relied on.

¶15

SPLA No. 107 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

The respondents were employed as teachers in various colleges of the State and were due to superannuate between 02.07.2005 and 30.12.2005 at the age of 62 years. In terms of First Statues of the University of Lucknow, 1976 ('First Statutes') and Government Orders, their services were continued till the end of Academic Session, i.e., 30.06.2006. The benefit of 6^th Pay Commission were implemented qua teachers of the universities vide notification dated 28.02.2009 w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

¶18

As by Government Order dated 21.08.1990, the State Government had extended the benefit of increment, pay revision and leave encashment along with computation of extended period of service for the purpose of payment of gratuity, the respondents claimed benefit of 6^th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequential benefits in this regard. Reliance was placed on judgment dated 25.02.2016 passed by the Division Bench in Dr. Anand Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others : Service Bench No. 398 of 2012 , decided on 25.02.2016.

¶19

The plea raised was contested by the appellants with the submissions that in terms of Government Order dated 28.02.2009, pay revision was made only for full time regular teachers working as on 01.01.2006 and respondents were not entitled for the aforesaid benefit since they attained the age of superannuation prior to the said date and were only reemployed. Further submissions were made that against judgment in the case of Dr. Anand Pratap Singh (supra), in the special leave petition filed by the State, leave has been granted and civil appeal is pending.

¶20

Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that issue was concluded in view of judgment in the case of Dr. Anand Pratap Singh (supra) and though the judgment is under challenge before Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was no interim order and following the said Division Bench judgment, allowed the writ petition as noticed hereinbefore.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that learned Single Judge did not refer to the First Statues, wherein under Clause 16.24, it was specifically provided that a teacher whose date of

¶22

SPLA No. 107 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

superannuation does not fall on 30 June, shall continue in service till the end of Academic Session, i.e., 30 June following and will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately following his superannuation and once a period from date of superannuation till 30 June is treated as on re-employment, the fact that 6^th Pay Commission was implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would not enure to their benefit and consequently, respondents were not entitled to any such relief.

¶25

Further submissions were made that judgment impugned has been passed relying on Division Bench judgment in the Case of Dr. Anand Pratap Singh (supra), against which leave has been granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appeal is pending and therefore, the grant of relief during pendency of the appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court is not justified. Further submissions were made that learned Single Judge was not justified in ordering for actual payment from 01.01.2006 as the writ petition was filed in the year 2021. Reliance was placed on Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh : (2008) 8 SCC 648 .

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment impugned. Submissions were made that the issue as raised in squarely covered by judgment in the case of Dr. Anand Pratap Singh (supra), wherein all the issues, as raised, have already been determined and therefore, the plea, as raised, has no substance. Further submissions were made that third proviso to Clause 16.24(3) of the First Statues is very clear, which provides that a teacher, who is treated to be on re-employment from the date immediately following the date from his superannuation till 30 June following will be entitled to pay and other benefits admissible to a Government employee with equal status.

¶27

Submissions were made that by Government Order dated 12.12.1984 pertaining to the teachers/principals of Government Colleges and Government Order dated 21.08.1990 pertaining to teachers employed at Government Aided, Non-Government Higher Secondary Schools, who were employed till end of the Academic Session were held entitled to increments, revision of salary, leave encashment and counting of the said period for pension and gratuity and therefore, in terms of third proviso to Clause 16.24(3) of the First Statues, the respondents were also entitled to

SPLA No. 107 of 2025

4

the same benefit.

It was submitted that in similar circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Kerala and another Vs. P.V. Neelakandan Nair and others : AIR 2005 SC 3066 , has upheld grant of benefit and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Submissions were made that only on account of pendency of appeal against judgment in the case of Dr. Anand Pratap Singh (supra) cannot be a reason to deny the benefit to the respondents as the pendency of the appeal does not stay the ratio of the judgment, which is binding.

¶32

In respect of relief, as granted by learned Single Judge, submissions were made that relief has been granted as per entitlement and therefore, the direction does not call for any interference.

¶33

We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record.

¶34

The respondents-teachers of Government Aided Degree and Post Graduate Colleges, who on account of First Statues retired on 30.06.2006, sought benefit of 6^th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequential revision of their pension. The representation made came to be rejected by order dated 20.01.2020 by distinguishing Government Order dated 21.08.1990 on the ground that the same pertained to Government Aided, Non-Government Higher Secondary Schools/Intermediate Colleges, which had no application to the respondents' case.

¶35

Learned Single Judge referred to the Division Bench Judgment in the Case of Dr. Anand Pratap Singh (supra), wherein the Division Bench came to the following conclusion:

¶36

"After attainment of age of superannuation, the extension of petitioners' services till the end of academic session is not disputed. They had retired between the period from 02.07.2005 to 31.12.2005 i.e. in the mid of academic session, therefore, their services had been extended till the end of academic session i.e. 30th June following. The Government Order dated 21.08.1990 has provided that such teachers shall be allowed to get

¶37

SPLA No. 107 of 2025

¶38

5

¶39

increment, pay revision and leave encashment during the course of extended period of service and this period shall be calculated for the purpose of pension and gratuity.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid Government Orders, the petitioners are entitled to get fixed their pension on the basis of the salary which was admissible to them on 30.06.2006. Since the recommendations of the Sixth pay Commission had been enforced w.e.f. 01.01.2006, they were entitled to get the salary as per revised pay scales as well as fixation of pension.

¶41

Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, we hereby issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to pay the petitioners' arrears of salary, which had become due between the period from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2006 as per recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission and fix their pension on the basis of salary, which was payable to them on 30.06.2006 as per recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission"

¶42

It is not in dispute that with reference to the First Statutes, the respondents continued to serve till the end of Academic Session, i.e., 30.06.2006. The relevant part of the Statues reads as under:

¶43

"16.24 (1) ... ... ...

¶44

(2) ... ... ...

¶45

(3) No extension in service beyond the age of superannuation shall be granted to any teacher after the date of commencement of these Statutes.

¶46

Provided that a teacher whose date of superannuation does not fall on June 30 shall continue in service till the end of the academic session, that is June 30 following and will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately following his superannuation till 30 June following.

¶47

Provided further that such physically and mentally fit teachers shall be reappointed for a further period of two years, after June 30 following the date of their superannuation as were imprisoned for taking part in freedom struggle of 1942 and are getting freedom fighters pension.

¶48

Provided also that a teacher who is treated to be on re-employment from

¶49

SPLA No. 107 of 2025

¶50

6

¶51

the date immediately following the date of his superannuation till June 30 following will be entitled to pay and other benefits admissible to a Government employee of equal status.

¶52

Provided also that the teachers, who were re-appointed in accordance with the second proviso as it existed prior to the commencement of the Lucknow University (Forty first Amendment) First Statutes, 1988 and a period of one year has not elapsed after the expiry of the period of their re-employment may be considered for re-appointment for a further period of one year."

¶53

A perusal of the above reveals that the teachers would serve till 30 June irrespective of the fact that their date of superannuation is between 02 July and 31 December. The first proviso indicates that the same would be treated as re-employment. The consequence of re-employment have not been indicated, however, the third proviso is very clear and specific providing for entitlement to pay and other benefits admissible to a Government employee of equal status. The notifications dated 12.12.1984 and 21.08.1990 dealing with teachers and principals working with Government Schools and Colleges and teachers working with Government Aided, Non-Government Higher Secondary Schools respectively reads as under:

¶54

िप्रय डा० गुप्त,

¶55

कृपया िनदेशालय के पत्रांक िडग्री बजट/2463/84, िदनांक 16 जून, 1984 का अवलोकन करें जो राजकीय महािवद्यालयों में काय र ्त िशक्षकों/प्रधानाचायोर्ं की अिधवषर्ता की आयु प्राप्त करने के बाद सेवा िववरण स्वीकृत करने के सम्बन्ध में है।

¶56

िनदेशालय के उपयुर्क्त संदिभत पत्र में उिल्लिखत िजज्ञासाओं के सम्बन्ध में िबन्दुवार िस्थित िनम्नवत हैः -

¶57

(1) राजकीय िवद्यालयों तथा महािवद्यालयों में काय र ्त िशक्षकों/प्रधानाचायोर्ं को राजाज्ञा संख्या 7022/15-3-82-31(16)/77, िदनांक 21-3-1984 के अन्तगर्त सेवा िवस्तरण प्राप्त करने वाले िशक्षकों/प्रधानाचायोर्ं को अिधवषर्ता की आयु प्राप्त करने वाले िशक्षकों/प्रधानाचायोर्ं

¶58

SPLA No. 107 of 2025

¶59

7

¶60

को अिधवषर्ता की आयु प्राप्त करने की ितिथ तथा सेवा िवस्तरण की ितिथ अथार्त् 30 जून तक की बीच की अविध में पड़ने वाली वेतन वृिद्ध की ितिथ को उन्हें वेतन वृिद्ध का लाभ अनुमन्य होगा।

¶61

(2) उिल्लिखत िशक्षकों को उिल्लिखत अविध का उपािजत अवकाश देय होगा।

¶62

(3) उिल्लिखत िशक्षकों उिल्लिखत अविध की गणना उनके पेन्शन एवं ग्रेच्युटी हेतु अहर् सेवा में जोड़ा जायेगा।

¶63

(4) िशक्षा िवभाग (Vocational Department) होने के नाते राजकीय महािवद्यालयों के अध्यापकों/प्रधानाचायोर् को एक कलेन्डर वषर् में िवत्तीय िनयमावली खण्ड - 2 से 5 के सहायक िनयम 157 ख(1) के अन्तगर्त एक िदन का उपािजत अवकाश अनुमन्य है। इससे अिधक िदन का उपािजत अवकाश िनयमान्तगर्त सम्भव नहीं है।

¶64

कृपया उपरोक्तानुसार कायर्वाही िकया जाना सुिनिश्चत करें। सादर,

¶65

¶66

सेवा में,

¶67

िशक्षा िनदेशक उत्तर प्रदेश

¶68

लखनऊ/इलाहाबाद।

¶69

िशक्षा (8) अनुभाग लखनऊः िदनांक 21 अगस्त, 1990

¶70

िवषयः - सहायता प्राप्त अशासकीय उच्चतर माध्यिमक िवद्यालयों/इन्टर कालेजों में काय र ्त िशक्षको को सत्रान्त तक सेवा िवस्तरण की अविध में लाभों की अनुमन्यता।

¶71

महोदय,

¶72

उपयुर्क्त िवषय की ओर आपका ध्यान आकिषत करते हुये मुझे यह कहने का िनदेर्श हुआ है िक सहायता प्राप्त अशासकीय उच्चतर माध्यिमक िवद्यालयों के िशक्षकों को सत्रात में सेवा िनवृित्त के फलस्वरूप उन्हें भी राजकीय उच्चतर माध्यिमक िवद्यालय के समकक्षीय िशक्षकों की भांित सेवा िवस्तरण की अविध में वेतन वृिद्ध, वेतन पुनरीक्षण, देय अिजत अवकाश आिद अनुमन्य िकए जानें तथा उक्त अविध की गणना पेंशन एवं ग्रेच्युटी हेतु िकए जाने की राज्यपाल महोदय ने सहषर् स्वीकृित प्रदान कर दी है। इस सम्बन्ध में पूवर् में जारी समस्त सम्बिन्धत शासनादेश उक्त सीमा तक संशोिधत समझे जाये।

¶73

SPLA No. 107 of 2025

¶74

8

¶75

यह आदेश शासनादेश संख्या - ई-11/2552/दस-90 िद० 21 अगस्त, 1990 में प्राप्त िवत्त िवभाग की सहमित से जारी िकया जा रहा है।

¶76

भवदीयः-

¶77

ह०/- प्रेमनाथ श्रीवास्तव,

¶78

अनुसिचव"

¶79

In view of the above Government Orders read with third proviso to Statute 16.24 (3), the respondents were entitled to the same treatment. Once the Government Orders dated 12.12.1984 and 21.08.1990 specifically provide that the period following the date of superannuation till 30 June would be counted for the purpose of increment, leave encashment and for the purpose of pension and gratuity and by Government Order dated 21.08.1990, even the pay revision has also been added, the plea raised regarding the non-application of the 6^th Pay Commission, which came into effect on 01.01.2006 on account of the respondents being allegedly re-employed has no basis as the Government Orders clearly provide for taking the period into consideration for all purposes including increment, pay revision, as such, the said plea has no basis.

¶80

The Division Bench, in the case of Dr. Anand Pratap Singh (supra) has clearly held the petitioners therein to be entitled for the same benefit. In the case of P.V. Neelakandan Nair (supra), a case of similar nature, wherein the issue pertained to pay revision w.e.f. 01.03.1997 and the teachers therein had retired on 31 March, Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the entitlement to the benefit and despite a restriction in the applicable rules, whereby the teachers were not entitle to any increment during the extended period, they were held entitled to benefit of pay revision. However, the case of the respondents, in the present appeal, stands on a far better footing, wherein the First Statutes makes the benefits as admissible to a Government employee of equal status to the respondents and the Government Orders specifically confer the benefit of pay revision as well. As such, the submissions sought to be made on behalf of the appellants have no substance.

¶81

SPLA No. 107 of 2025

¶82

9

¶83

So far as the pendency of the appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Anand Pratap Singh (supra) is concerned, mere pendency of appeal without there being any interim order staying the effect and operation of the judgment is not a reason enough for postponing/denying the benefit to similarly placed petitioners and therefore, the plea raised in this regard also has no substance.

¶84

Coming to the plea raised pertaining to the grant of benefit/consequential relief to the respondents by the learned Single Judge, wherein though the writ petition was filed in the year 2021, the benefit has been granted since 01.01.2006 is concerned, the said aspect requires consideration.

¶85

In the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia , laid down as under:

¶86

"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the

¶87

SPLA No. 107 of 2025

¶88

10

¶89

date of filing of the writ petition.

¶90

In this case, the delay of 16 years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to 16 years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances.

¶91

In view of the above, these appeals are allowed. The order of the Division Bench directing payment of disability pension from the date it fell due, is set aside. As a consequence, the order of the learned Single Judge is restored."

¶92

The said judgment has been followed in State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Yogendra Shrivastava : (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Asger Ibrahim Amin Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India : (2016) 13 SCC 797 . The ratio as laid down in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) would have application on all force to the case in hand and therefore, the respondents were entitled to arrears to only three years before the date of filing of the writ petition, which in the present case is 27.07.2021.

¶93

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed while the determination made by learned Single Judge qua the entitlement of the respondents to benefit of 6^th Pay Commission is rejected, the relief granted is modified to the extent that though the respondents would be entitled to revision of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequential revision of pensionary benefits, they will be entitled to arrears w.e.f. August, 2018 only. The calculation in accordance thereof and actual payment shall be made within a period of four months from the date of this order.

¶94

(Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶95

April 23, 2026 Mukesh Pal

¶96

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Govt. Lko and 2 Others v. Dr. Dhan Prakash Goel and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Govt. Lko and 2 Others v. Dr. Dhan Prakash Goel and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water Resources Jal Shakti and 10 Ors. vs Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others

Smt. Sarita Katiyar and Another vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Senior Divisional Manager, Lko.

M/S Regenvo Mobile Private Limited Lucknow Thru Its Director Rahul Singh and Anr. vs M/S Siyogi Enterprises Thru Managing Director and Others

Umesh Chandra Lodhi vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Environment Lko and Ors.

Milk Producer Cooperative Union Ltd. Thru. General Manager vs Managing Director Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. and 2 Others

Niraj Kumar Singh vs Anand Kumar Mishra and 4 Others