Markanday Mani vs State Of U.P.Thru Secy & Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 6555 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 7
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9218 of 2013
 
Petitioner :- Markanday Mani
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vashistha Tiwari,Hemant Kumar Dubey,Sanjay Ram Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri I.S. Tomar, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the respondents.

Facts

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in Primary Section attached to "Satya Narain Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Barari Baitalpur, District Deoria" which is recognized institution under the statute of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, established under the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher for Sanskrit subject on 1.12.1977. He retired on 30.6.2010 after attaining the age of superannuation. Since during service the petitioner and other teachers were facing problem in getting salary and other benefits and as such they filed a writ petition No. Nil of 1993 which was disposed of by order dated 15.5.1993.

3. Aggrieved with that order the present petitioner and others filed a Special Appeal No.558 of 1993 (Sant Prasad Mani and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was allowed by judgment dated 27.3.1997 holding that the facts and controversy involved is squarely covered by the judgment dated 18.1.1993 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29290 of 1990 (Ramesh Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and others) reported in 1993 ESC 360.

4. The petitioner and other teachers of the aforesaid institution were being paid salary as per provisions of Payment of Salary Act 1971. The exemption from training was also granted to the petitioner and fixation of salary was made by order of the Joint Director of Education 7th Division, Gorakhpur dated 20.11.2009. Since pension was not granted to the petitioner after retirement and as such the petitioner filed a Writ A No.45447 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 7.9.2012 as under:

"Petitioner is said to have attained the age of superannuation, but till date pension has not been ensured to him, whereas during continuance in service, he had functioned in the pensionable department. Such grievance of the petitioner can be very well looked into, examined and remedied by by the Joint Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur.

Consequently, Joint Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur is directed to consider the claim of petitioner and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law by means of reasoned and speaking order, within next three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."

5. Pursuant to the aforequoted order of this Court, the Joint Director of Education 7th Division, Gorakhpur passed the impugned order dated 1.12.2012 whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected holding as under:

fu.kZ;

**lgk;rk izkIr laLd`r ek/;fed fo|ky;[email protected]|ky;ksa ds layXu izkFkfed vuqHkkx esa lsokjr ,oa vuojr osru Hkqxrku IkzkIr djrs gq, lsokfuo`RRk f'k{kdksa ds isa'kujh ykHkksa ds ns;rk ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ 'kklukns'k ,oa foHkkxh; vkns'k tkjh u gksus dh fLFkfr esa ;kph ekjd.Ms; ef.k dk izR;kosnu fnukad 15-09-2012 ,oa rRdze esa bl gLrk{kjdrkZ ds dk;kZy; esa fnukad 26-09-2012 dks izkIr ;kph dk izR;kosnu fujLr dj fUkLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

,rn~}kjk ;kfpdk la[;k&[email protected] esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 07-09-2012 ds vuqikyu esa izdj.k dk fUkLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA **

Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Submissions on behalf of Petitioner

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under:

i) The petitioner is entitled for all post retiral benefits including pension in terms of the Division Bench Judgement in the case of Sant Prasad Mani (supra) in which the petitioner was the appellant no.3.

ii) In view of directions issued by this Court in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay (supra) the petitioner is entitled to all post retirement benefits which are available to teachers of Primary Sections attached to High School and Intermediate Colleges.

iii) The impugned order is arbitrary and illegal.

iv) The stand taken in the impugned order, the counter affidavit and the personal affidavit of the respondent No.6 dated 13.10.2017 are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also amounts to deliberate disobedience of the law settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the petitioner's own case as well as the judgment in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay (supra) against which Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2470 of 1994 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Upadhyay and others) was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 12.7.1995.

Submissions on behalf of Respondents

7. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, supports the impugned order and submits that since there is no Government Order extending benefit of pension to teachers of primary section attached to recognized Sanskrit Institution and as such the petitioner is not entitled for pension. Benefit of the Government Order dated 20.1.2004 and 3.12.2003 can not be extended to the petitioner inasmuch as these Government Orders do not specifically provide for extending the benefit to the teachers working in primary school attached to Sanskrit institution.

Discussion and Findings

8. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Undisputedly, the institution in question is a recognized institution under the first Statute of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya which was established under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in the primary section attached to the aforesaid Sanskrit institution. The Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2000') was enacted which came into force w.e.f. 30.9.2000. Section 2(f) of the Act 2000 defines the word "institution" to mean a Sanskrit School imparting Sanskrit Education upto Uttar Madhayama recognised by the Board. Section 13 of the Act 2000, provides for automatic recognition to certain institution which covers the institution in question. Section 13 of the Act 2000 is reproduced below:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 or any other Uttar Pradesh Act, on and from the commencement of this Act, all the institutions, situated in the State, immediately before such commencement including Government Sanskrit Schools, imparting Sanskrit education up to Uttar Madhyama, affiliated to or recognised by the Government Sanskrit College, Varanasi or Sampumanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi shall be deemed to have been recognised by the Board under this Act and shall cease to be affiliated to or recognised by the said Government College or Vishwavidyalayas and shall be governed by the provisions of this Act;

Provided that the said Government college or Vishwavidyalaya shall hold examination of persons pursuing Prathama, Purva Madhyama or Uttar Madhyama courses of study in such institution immediately before such commencement and shall have power to grant diploma or certificate to such persons.

10. Section 26 of the Act provides for service conditions of persons employed in an institution as may be prescribed by regulation. On being asked learned Additional Advocate General states that no regulation under Section 26 of the Act 2000 has been framed by the State Government so far.

11. In view of the fact and legal position as noted above, there remains no dispute that the institution in question is a recognised institution to which The Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1971') and The Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1978') are applicable.

12. The definition of the word "institution" given in Section 2(b) of the Act 1971 and Section 2(e) of the Act 1978 specifically includes Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya or a Sanskrit Vidyalaya receiving maintenance grant from the State Government.

13. In the case of Ramesh Upadhya (supra) the facts were that the petitioners in that case were teachers of primary section of "Sri Alpeshwarnath Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya Janewar, Fatehganj, Jaunpur" which was the recognised Sanskrit Institution imparting education for primary section, Junior High School, Purva Madhyama (High School), Uttar Madhyama (Intermediate) and Shastri (B.A.). Thus that institution like the institution involved in the present writ petition, are imparting education from Class 1 upto graduate level and are recognised institution affiliated to Sampurnand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. In the aforesaid case teachers of "Alpeshwarnath Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya" were aggrieved with non payment of salary to primary section teachers in Sanskrit institution from the State fund and as such they filed the aforesaid writ petition i.e. Ramesh Upadhya (supra) which was allowed by this Court and a general mandamus was issued as under :

"In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed and a mandamus is issued directing the Respondents to pay salary to the primary section teachers in Sanskrit institutions through the State as is done in case of primary school teachers of High School and Intermediate College. Also, the salaries to be paid to the former must be the same as that paid to the latter, i.e. in accordance with the G.O. dated 28.2.90 and 6.9.90 as amended. The petitioners will also be entitled to other consequential benefits like group insurance, General Provident Fund, retirement benefits etc. which are being made available to the Primary section teachers in High School and Intermediate Colleges."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

14. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment in the case of Ramesh Upadhya (supra) the State of U.P. preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2470 of 1994 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Upadhyay and others) which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 12.7.1995. Despite a general mandamus having been issued by this Court in the case of Ramesh Upadhya (supra) the State respondents were not extending the benefits and were not obeying the general mandamus and as such certain teachers including the petitioner falling under the same class filed a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine. Against that order the petitioner and others filed a Special Appeal No.558 of 1993 (Sant Prasad Mani and 16 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was allowed holding as under:

"We have perused the impugned order, memo of appeal and other documents annexed to it. We are satisfied that this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Upadhyay's case (supra). In the impugned order the learned Single Judge has not even referred to the said judgment, even though as submitted by Sri Padia a copy of the judgment dated 18.1.1993 was annexed as annexure to the writ petition. As noted earlier the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in limine merely holding that the petitioners should approach the Vice Chancellor of the University first. In the facts and circumstances of this case discussed above the impugned order is unsustainable in law.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The order dated 15.5.1993 is set aside and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993 is allowed in terms of the Judgment dated 18.1.1993 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29290 of 1990 (Ramesh Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and others)."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

15. Thus in view of the aforequoted Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of the present petitioner, the respondents were bound to pay salary to the petitioner as admissible to primary school teachers of High School and Intermediate. The salary was to be paid in accordance with the G.O. dated 28.2.1990 and 6.9.1990 as amended and all consequential benefits like group insurance, general provident fund and retirements benefits etc. as are being made available to primary section teachers of high school and intermediate colleges are also to be paid to the petitioners. Despite this settled legal position the State-respondents have not only arbitrarily and illegally rejected the representation of the petitioner by the impugned order but also shown disobedience to the orders and directions issued by this Court in the case of Ramesh Upadhya (supra) and Sant Prasad Mani (supra) in which the petitioner herein was petitioner no.3.

16. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 1.12.2012 passed by the Joint Director of Education 7th Division, Gorakhpur can not be sustained and is, therefore, quashed. Direction is issued to the State-respondents to extend all benefits to the petitioner in terms of the judgments in the case of Ramesh Upadhya (supra) and Sant Prasad Mani (supra).

Whether action of the State-respondents is violative of Article 14

17. In the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 692, Hon'ble Supreme Court noted the fact that in one of the appeals a recognised Sanskrit institution affiliated to the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi is involved which is imparting education from Class 1 upto graduate level. Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the law laid down by Constitution Bench in J.P. Unnikrishnan Vs. State of A.P. (1993) 1 SCC 645 (para 172), eleven-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 (question No.9) and in Mohni Jain Vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666, and provisions of Article 45 and subsequently inserted Article 21-A of the Constitution, highlighted the importance of primary education and primary educational institution, the provisions of the Act 1971 and the Act 1978 and held as under :

"43. It is important to notice here that recognised Junior High Schools can be of three kinds: (one) having Classes I to VIII, i.e., Classes I to V (Junior Basic School) and so also Classes VI to VIII (Senior Basic School), (two) a school as above and upgraded to High School or intermediate standard and (three) Classes VI to VIII (Senior Basic School) initially with no Junior Basic School (Classes I to V) being part of the said school.

44. As regards the first two categories of Junior High Schools, the applicability of Section 10 of the 1978 Act does not create any difficulty. The debate which has centered round in this group of appeals is in respect of third category of the schools where Classes I to V are added after obtaining recognition to the schools which are recognized and aided for imparting education in Classes VI to VIII. Whether teachers of primary section Classes I to V in such schools are entitled to the benefit of Section 10 of the 1978 Act is the moot question. As noticed, the constitutional obligation of the state to provide for free and compulsory education of children till they complete the age of 14 years is beyond doubt now. The note appended to clause (xxvi), para 1 of the Educational Code (revised edition, 1958), inter alia, provides that Basic Schools include single schools with Classes I to VIII. In our view, if a Junior Basic School (Classes I to V) is added after obtaining necessary recognition to a recognized and aided Senior Basic School (Classes VI to VIII), then surely such Junior Basic School becomes integral part of one school, i.e., Basic School having Classes I to VIII. The expression "Junior High School" in the 1978 Act is intended to refer to the schools imparting basic education, i.e., education up to VIII class. We do not think it is appropriate to give narrow meaning to the expression "Junior High School" as contended by the learned senior counsel for the state. That Legislature used the expression Junior High School and not the Basic School as used and defined in the 1972 Act, in our view, is insignificant. The view, which we have taken, is fortified by the fact that in Section 2(j) of the 1978 Act, the expressions defined in the 1972 Act are incorporated."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

18. In Writ - A No.2702 of 2016, C/M Mahant Triveni Parvat Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and another Vs. State of U.P. and two others decided on 21.1.2016 this Court observed as under:

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others,(2014) 9 SCC 692 and in Civil Appeal No. 3989 of 2006 (State of U.P. & Others v. Pawan Kumar Dwivedi and others) dated 2nd September, 2014, has held that the attached Primary Institution of a recognized institution is also entitled for the payment of salary to the teachers and non teaching staff from the State Fund. A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 994 of 2014 (Paripurna Nand Tripathi & Another v. State of U.P. & 20 others), following the said cases and considering the provisions of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, has issued a direction to the State Government to reconsider its existing guidelines in respect of grant-in-aid to the attached Primary Institution. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-

"After the enactment of the Act, 2009 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra), Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust (supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others, we are of the view that the State Government may revisit its age old policy in the light of the constitutional amendment and the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the subject.

Undoubtedly, now it is the State's responsibility to provide free and compulsory education to the children of the age of six to fourteen years. Private institutions, which are imparting education to children of the said age group, in fact, are performing and sharing the obligations of the State. Therefore, an obligation is cast upon the State Government not only to provide the grant-in-aid to such institutions but to provide infrastructure also subject to reasonable conditions laid down by it. Providing education to the children of the age of six to fourteen years shall be a mirage unless qualitative education is provided to them.

In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the large majority of children of the said age group come from the marginalized sections of the society. Most of the institutions providing primary and basic education are situated in rural and semi-urban areas. To provide quality education it is necessary that trained and competent teachers are appointed and necessary infrastructure is also made available to such institutions. The teachers in private unaided institutions are working in pitiable conditions. No good teacher would like to work in such institutions. Thus, the students will be deprived of quality education."

19. The Government Order dated 20.1.2004 having relevance on the issue also extends equal benefits to teachers of all Primary Schools attached to aided Junior High School which includes a Sanskrit Primary School. The said Government Order is reproduced below:

la[;k &[email protected]&6&04&28 ¼18½@2000

isz"kd]

Jh gfjjkt fd'kksj

lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok esa]

f'k{kk funs'kd ¼ek0½]

m0iz0] y[kuÅA

f'k{kk vuqHkkx&6 y[kuÅ] fnukad% 20 tuojh] 2004

fo"k;% v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|k;yksa ls lEc)

izkbejh izHkkx ds f'k{[email protected]'kf{kdkvksa dks isa'ku dh lqfo/kk

vuqeU; djk, tkus ds laca/k esaA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lanHkZ esa eq>s vkils ;g] dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd fd v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ls lEc) izkbejh izHkkx ¼[email protected]½ ds f'k{[email protected]'kf{kdkvksa dks] lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kdksa dh Hkk¡fr lsokfuo`fRrd ykHk ;Fkk%&isa'ku] ikfjokfjd isa'ku] xszP;wVh o th0ih0,Q0 dh lqfo/kk dk ykHk fn, tkus dh&&&

Jh jkT;iky egksn; lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSA

2- ;g lsokfuo`fRrd ykHk vksn'k fuxZeu dh frfFk ls vFkok mlds mijkUr lsokfuo`fRr gksus okys f'k{kdksa dks gh vuqeU; gksxh rFkk isa'ku gsrq vgZdkjh lsok ogh ekuh tk,xh ftls vof/k ds fy, lacaf/kr f'k{kd dk lh0ih0,[email protected],Q0 va'knku dVk gksA

3- mDr en ij gksus okyk O;; vuqnku la[;k&71 ds laxr ys[kk 'kh"kZd esa izkfo/kkfur otV ls ogu fd;k tk,xkA

4- ;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx ds v'kkldh; la[;k&bZ&[email protected]@nl&04 fnukad% 20 tuojh] 2004 esa izkIr mudh lgefr ls tkjh fd, tk jgs gSA

Hkonh;

[email protected]

¼gfjjkt fd'kksj½

lfpoA

20. The stand taken by the State-respondents in the counter affidavit as well as in the personal affidavit of respondent no.6, dated 30.10.2017 that the Government Order dated 20.1.2004 is not applicable to teachers working in primary school attached to Sanskrit institution, is wholly baseless. The aforesaid Government order does not exclude primary section attached to Sanskrit institution. That apart there is already a mandamus operating as was issued by this Court in the case of Ramesh Upadhya (supra) and Sant Prasad Mani (supra).

21. The attempt of the respondents to deny the post retirement benefits to the teachers of primary section attached to non governmental aided institution imparting Sanskrit education, is wholly arbitrary and, thus, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no rational basis for discriminating to primary section teachers of Sanskrit institution as against primary section teachers of other institutions.

Importance of Sanskrit Language:

22. The importance of Sanskrit language in the development of civilisation, science and culture can not be disputed. It would be appropriate to quote from the constituent assembly debate which took place on 12.9.1949, as under:

"The Hon'ble Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta-

We want to hear your views on Sanskrit

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed. I am extremely thankful to the Hon'ble member, Mr. Gupta. If you have to adopt any language why should you not have the world's greatest language? It is today a matter of great regret that we do not know with what reveration Sanskrit is held in the outside world. I shall only quote a few brief remarks made about Sanskrit to show how this language is held in the civilized world Mr. W.C. Taylor says "Sanskrit is the language of unrivalled richness and purity.

Mr. President:-I would suggest you may leave that question alone, because I propose to call representatives who have given notice of amendments of a fundamental character, and I will call upon a gentleman who has given notice about Sanskrit to speak about it.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed: Yes. Sir, I shall not stand in between. I will only give a few quotations. Prof. Max Muller says that Sanskrit is the "greatest language in the world, the most wonderful and the most perfect." Sir William Jones said "Whenever we direct our attention to the Sanskrit literature, the notion of infinity presents itself Surely the longest life would not suffice for a perusal of works that rise and swell, protuberant like the Himalayas, above the bulkiest compositions of every land beyond the confines of India". Then, Sir W. Hunter says that "the Grammar of Panini stands supreme among the grammars of the world. It stands forth as one of the most splendid achievements of human invention and Industry". Prof. Whitney Says "Its unequalled transparency of structure fives it (Sanskrit) undisputable right to the first place amongst the tongues of the Indo-European family". M Dubois says "Sanskrit it the origin of the modern languages of Europe". Prof. Weber says "Panini's grammar is universally admitted to be the shortest and fullest grammar in the world". Prof. Wilson says "No nation but the Hindu has yet been able to discover such a perfect system of phonetics". Proof Thompson says "The arrangement of consonants in Sanskrit is a unique example of human genius". Dr Shahidullah professor of Dacca University, who has a world wide reputation as a Sanskrit Scholar, says "Sanskrit is the language of every man to whatever race he may belong".

An Hon'ble Member : What is your view?

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed My own view is that it is one of the greatest languages, and... .

An Hon'ble Member : And should it be adopted as the National Language or not. It is not spoken by any one now.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed : Yes, and for the simple reason that it is impartially difficult to all Hindi is easy for the Hindi speaking areas, but it is difficult for other areas. I offer you a language which is the grandest and the greatest, and it is impartially difficult, equally difficult for all to learn. There should be some impartiality in the selection. If we have to adopt a language it must be grand, great and the best. Then why should we discard the clause of Sanskrit?

Pandit Lakshmi Kant Maitra : If today India has got an opportunity to shape her own destiny I ask in all seriousness if she is going to feel ashamed to recognize the Sanskrit Language--The revered grandmother of Languages of the world, still alive with full vigour, vitality? Are we going to deny her rightful place in Free India. That is a question which I solemnly ask. I know it will be said it is a dead language. Yes Dead to whom Dead to you because have become dead to all which is great and noble in your own old culture and civilization. You have been chasing the shadow and have never tried to grasp the substance which is contained in your great literature. If Sanskrit is dead may I say that Sanskrit is ruling us from her grave? Nobody can get away from Sanskrit in India."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

23. The word "Sanskrit" means "prepared, pure, refined or perfect". It is called 'Devavani". It was the language of our philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, poets, playwrights, grammarians, jurists etc. The high development of the Sanskrit language was not accidental. It took place because a vehicle of expressing highly abstract, subtle and profound thoughts were required to fulfil the intellectual needs of educated people in India. Mathematics, Physics, Literature, Philosophy, Law etc. became highly developed in our country, and hence a correspondingly highly developed and powerful vehicle of expression was required to communicate words or thoughts with elegance, precision and exactitude. Hence the crude Sanskrit of the Vedic Literature was refined and systematized by Panini and Patanjali who made it perhaps the most developed of all the languages of the world. No body can get away from Sanskrit in India. It has played unique, great and noble role in our culture, civilization and to keep people of our country united from thousands and thousands years. In Sanskrit our Vedas, Purans, Upnishads, Valmiki Ramayan, Mahabarat and Geeta etc. have been written. Great Scholars, whose work are guiding force for the entire human beings; like Kalidas, Bhavbuti, and Banbhatta etc. wrote their classics in Sanskrit language. Aadi Guru Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, Madhavacharya, Nimbark and Vallabhacharya and several others have woven the fabric of Indian culture in Sanskrit language as a medium of expressing their thoughts. As per report of Sanskrit Commission (set up by Government of India) submitted in the year 1957 (Reference Page 71, 73 and 74), "Sanskrit is one of the greatest languages of the world. It is a classical language par excellence not only of India but of a good part of Asia as well. Indian people and Indian civilisation were born, so as to say, in the lap of Sanskrit and it went hand in hand with the historical development of the Indian people, and gave the noblest expression to their mind and culture which has come down to our day as an inheritance of priceless order for India, nay, for the entire world". The report further states "great mental and spiritual link" of Sanskrit and of it being the elder sister of Greek and Latin, and cousin of English, French and Russian. Sanskrit is the "embodiment of Indian culture and civilisation". It is the binding force for the different people of our great country. Without the learning of Sanskrit it is not possible to decipher the Indian Philosophy on which our culture and heritage are based. It is inextricably linked with the life, rituals, ceremonies and festivals of the people of our country. It is a window to the rich cultural, philosophical, artistic and scientific heritage of India, that is Bharat. Its contribution to the cultural unity of our country is unique.

24. In the case of Santosh Kumar Vs. Seretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development and another (1994) 6 SCC 579 (para 8, 9, 10,11 and 13) Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted the importance of Sanskrit language by referring the Education Policy of Central Government formulated in 1968 and 1986 and observations of our first Prime Minister Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru, as under:

"8. We may now advert to the broad framework of our education policy as accepted by the Central Government. For our purpose it would be enough if we refer to the policies as formulated in 1968 and 1986. Here again, we would confine our attention to what was stated in these policies regarding Sanskrit. In the 1968 policy the following found place qua this language :

"Considering the special importance of Sanskrit to the growth and development of Indian languages and its unique contribution to the cultural unity of the country, facilities for its teaching at the school and university stages should be offered on more liberal basis. Development of new methods of teaching the language should be encouraged, and the possibility explored of including the study of Sanskrit in those courses (such as modern Indian philosophy) at the first and second degree stages, where such knowledge is useful."

9. The 1986 policy has to say as below in this regard in para 5.33:

"Research in Indology, the humanities and Social Sciences will receive adequate support. To fulfill the need for the synthesis of knowledge, inter-disciplinary research will be encouraged. Efforts will be made to delve into India's ancient fund of knowledge and to relate it to contemporary reality. This effort will imply the development of facilities for the intensive study of Sanskrit."(Emphasis supplied)

10. It would be of some interest to note that when Sir William Jones, one of the most brilliant men of 18th century, came to India in 1783 as a Judge of the then Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort Williams in Bengal, he got interested to learn Sanskrit and it grew so strong that within six years he not only became the master of the language but translated Kalidas's Shakuntla. After about two hundred years it has fallen to the Judges of the present Supreme Court to highlight the importance of Sanskrit and to see that it finds its due place in the niche of our national life.

Place of Sanskrit in our educational ethos.

11. It is well known that Sanskrit is a mother of all Indo-Aryan languages and it is this language in which our Vedas, Puranas and Upanishadas have been written and in which Kalidas, Bhavbuti, Banabhatta and Dandi wrote their classics. Teachings of Shankracharya, Ramanuja, Madhawacharya, Nimbark and Vallabhacharya would not have been woven into the fabric of Indian culture if Sanskrit would not have been available to them as a medium of expressing their thoughts.

13. There is no need to dilate on the importance of Sanskrit further in our national ethos in view of what was stated by no less a person than the first Prime Minister of the country, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, in which regard, which is as below :

If I was asked what is the greatest treasure which India possesses and what is her finest heritage, I would answer unhesitatingly - it is the Sanskrit language and literature, and all that it contains. This is a magnificent inheritance, and so long as this endures and influences the life of our people, so long the basic genius of India will continue."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

25. Emphasising the need for encouragement of Sanskrit and also it being one of the languages included in the Eight Schedule to the Constitution of India, Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to Chapter IV of the Report of Sanskrit Commission on the subject "Sanskrit and National Solidarity" and observed in the case of Santosh Kumar (supra) (para 18) as under:

"18. We also propose to refer to what was said by the Sanskrit Commission on the subject of "Sanskrit and National Solidarity" in Chapter IV of its report. The Commission has, in this context first stated that Sanskrit is the "embodiment of Indian culture and civilisation". It then observes that the Indian People look upon Sanskrit as the binding force for the different peoples of this great country, which was described as the greatest discovery which the Commission made as it travelled from Kerala to Kashmir and from Kamarupa to Saurastra. The Commission, while so travelling, found that though the people of this country differed in a number of ways, they all were proud to regard themselves as participants in a common heritage; and that heritage emphatically is the heritage of Sanskrit. According to the Commission one of the witnesses which appeared before it went to the length of suggesting that if the Sanskrit Commission had come before the States Reorganisation Commission, many of the recent bickerings in our national life could have been avoided."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

26. On Sanskrit Divas-2006 by Notification No.S.O.2736(E) vide resolution dated 9.8.2006, the Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Higher Education) constituted a "Rastriya Sanskrit Parishad" defining its role, functions and composition as under:

"Ministry of Human Resource Development

[Noti. No.S.O.2736(E)]

Dated August 9th, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION)

(Sanskrit Divas-2006)

RESOLUTION

In pursuance of the recommendations of the Sanskrit Commission submitted in November 1957, this Ministry had been constituting a Central Sanskrit Board (CSB) to advise the central Government in various matters relating to Sanskrit, for a period of three years at a time. The board was last constituted in September 2002, vide this Ministry's Resolution number F. No. 41- 2/2002 Skt -I dated: 26.09.2002. Tenure of the last Board so constituted ended in September 2005.

2. The question of instituting a more effective institutional mechanism for the preservation, promotion and development of the rich heritage of Sanskrit, along with that of Pali and Prakrit, has been under the consideration of the Government for some time, and the Central Government have now decided to constitute a "Rashtriya Sanskrit Parishad" with the following role, functions and composition:

2.1 Role

The main role of the Rashtriya Sanskrit Parishad would be to:

(i) preserve and develop the rich heritage of Sanskrit along with that of Pali and Prakrit, and

(ii) to raise levels of awareness and appreciation for this rich heritage among the people both for its own sake, as well as to enable them to identify with Sanskrit as the " mother " of most modern Indian Languages.

2.2 Functions

Subject to the above general role, specific functions of the Parishad shall be as follows: 

(1) To advise Central Government, State Governments, UGC, Universities, Research Institutions, NCERT, National Council for Teachers' Education (NCTE) etc. in regard to the following matters pertaining to Sanskrit.

(i) Formulation, implementation and monitoring of policies, plans, programmes and schemes for preservation, development and propagation of the language (in India as well as abroad).

(ii) Co-ordination of pattern of education and structure of courses at different levels (including standardization of syllabi, examinations and degrees; and qualifications of different types of teachers and their training).

(iii) Improvement and development of Pathshalas and other Institutions of Education as well as Research.

(iv) Development of improved textbooks.

(v) Use of Information Communicating Technology (ICT) and electronic & print media for the propagation of Sanskrit.

(vi) Promotion and Coordination of research in Sanskrit.

(vii) International collaboration in preservation, propagation and development of Sanskrit.

(2) To coordinate the work of Universities, Deemed Universities, State Sanskrit Academies, and other premier institutions engaged in propagation, education and research pertaining to Sanskrit.

(3) To act as a forum for exchange of ideas and clearing house of information among above institutions.

(4) To perform the above functions, mutatis mutandis, for Pali and Prakrit as well.

2.3 Constitution

The parishad shall consist of the following, namely: -

1.

Minister for Human Resource Development

- Chairman, (ex officio)

2.

Minister of State (Human Resource Development)

(Department of Higher Education)

- Vice-Chairman, (ex officio)

3.

Scholars of Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit to be 10

nominated by the Central Government

(a) Sanskrit

8 (of whom, at least three

shall be Professors of

Sanskrit in Universities)

(b) Pali

(c) Prakrit

4. Ex- officio Members

(i) Chairman, UGC

(ii) Vice Chancellors of all Sanskrit Universities of the Country.

(iii) Vice Chairman, Maharishi Sandipani Ved Vidya Pratishthan, Ujjain

(iv) Director, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune

(v)Chairman or Directors of half the member of state Sanskrit Academies nominated by, rotation.

(vi) Director, NCERT

(vii) Chairman, NCTE

(viii) Director, Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore.

(ix) Secretary, Department of Higher Education or an Additional/Joint Secretary nominated by him

(x) Financial Advisor, Department of Higher Education

(xi) Vice Chancellors of Central Deemed Universities working exclusively or primarily for Sanskrit.

One of the Vice Chancellors of the Central Deemed Universities working exclusively or primarily for Sanskrit will be nominated as Member-Secretary of the Parishad.

2.4.Tenure

The term of the nominated members of the Parishad shall be three years, subject to the pleasure of the Central Government.

3. The Parishad shall meet at least once every year and shall devise its own procedure in regard to its meetings etc."

27. The "Committee for Evolution of the New Education Policy" in connection with the "National Education Policy -2016" submitted its report dated 30.04.2016 to Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi, the Committee highlighted the importance of Sanskrit language being inextricably linked with the life, rituals, ceremonies and festivals, its unique contribution to the cultural unity of the country and a window to the rich cultural, philosophical, artistic and scientific heritage of India. Consequently it observed that Sanskrit may be introduced as an independent subject at primary and upper primary stage at a suitable time.

28. Such being the importance of Sanskrit language, this Court in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay (supra) held that the discrimination being shown by the State Government to Sanskrit language is a National crime. Discriminatory treatment to teachers of primary section attached to recognised aided Sanskrit institution is discrimination to the learning and teaching of Sanskrit language. Such discrimination is nothing but an attempt to cut the plant from the root so that they may not develop. Such discrimination is a grave threat to the Sanskrit language and, therefore, it needs immediate attention of the State-Government for taking appropriate action.

29. In the case of Ramesh Upadhyay (supra) (para 11), this court observed that this veil of ignorance has to be broken, and this great language rich in all fields must come to people in its explicable forms. All aspects of our culture are indissolubly linked with it. Hence it is a national crime to treat this language with contempt by giving its primary section teachers a step motherly treatment in payment of salary and post retirement benefits.

Conclusions:

30. The discussion made above are briefly summarised as under:-

(i) The impugned order dated 01.12.2012 passed by the Joint Director of Education, 7th Division, Gorakhpur is arbitrary and illegal and is, therefore, quashed.

(ii) General mandamus issued in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay (supra) as reproduced in para 13 above for payment of salary to Primary Section teachers and all consequential benefits like group Insurance, G.P.F., retirement benefits etc., shall be extended to them as are made available to primary section teachers attached to High School and Intermediate Colleges. Accordingly all post retirement benefits including pension, if not paid so far, shall be paid to the petitioner.

(iii) As stated in Unni Krishnan J.P. Vs. State of A.P. (1993) 1 SCC 645, education is a preparation of living and for life here and hereafter. It is a social and political necessity. Peace is preserved, progress is achieved, civilisation is built up and history is made, in educational institutions which are seed-beds of culture. Teaching in primary and secondary schools is the foundation which broaden the mind by exposing the learner to the world of thoughts and reflection.

(iv) Denial of pension to teachers of primary section attached to recognised Sanskrit Institution is not only discriminatory but also discouragement to the learning of Sanskrit and grave threat to the "embodiment of Indian culture, civilisation and binding force" and "cultural, philosophical, artistic and scientific heritage and cultural unity of India".

(v) The word "Sanskrit" means "prepared, pure, refined or perfect". It is called 'Devavani". It was the language of our philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, poets, playwrights, grammarians, jurists etc. Opinion about 'Sanskrit' language expressed by great scholars of the world leads to an irresistible conclusion that 'Sanskrit' is world's greatest language having unrivalled richness, purity and perfection. It stands supreme amongst grammars of the world. It is the origin of modern languages of Europe. It deserves first place amongst the tongues of the Indo-European family. The arrangements of consonants in Sanskrit is the Unique example of human genius. It is the language of every man to whatever race he may belong. It is grandest, greatest and revered grandmother of languages of the world. No body can get away from Sanskrit in India. It has played unique, great and noble role in our culture, civilization and to keep people of our country united from thousands and thousands years. In Sanskrit our Vedas, Purans, Upnishads and Geeta have been written. Great Scholars, whose work are guiding force for the entire human beings; like Kalidas, Bhavbuti, Banbhatta and Dandi wrote their classics in Sanskrit language. Aadi Guru Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, Madhavacharya, Nimbark and Vallabhacharya and several others have woven the fabric of Indian culture in Sanskrit language as a medium of expressing their thoughts. As per report of Sanskrit Commission (set up by Government of India) submitted in the year 1957 (Reference Page 71, 73 and 74), "Sanskrit is one of the greatest languages of the world. It is a classical language par excellence not only of India but of a good part of Asia as well. Indian people and Indian civilisation were born, so as to say, in the lap of Sanskrit and it went hand in hand with the historical development of the Indian people, and gave the noblest expression to their mind and culture which has come down to our day as an inheritance of priceless order for India, nay, for the entire world". The report further states "great mental and spiritual link" of Sanskrit and of it being the elder sister of Greek and Latin, and cousin of English, French and Russian. Sanskrit is the "embodiment of Indian culture and civilisation". It is the binding force for the different people of our great country. Without the learning of Sanskrit it is not possible to decipher the Indian Philosophy on which our culture and heritage are based. It is inextricably with the life, rituals, ceremonies and festivals of the people of our country. It is a window to the rich cultural, philosophical, artistic and scientific heritage of India, that is Bharat. Its contribution to the cultural unity of our country is unique.

(vi) If regulations in terms of Section 26 of the Act 2000 have not been framed so far then the State-Government shall consider to frame Regulations expeditiously, preferably within six months.

31. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 1.12.2012 can not be sustained being arbitrary and illegal. Hence it is quashed. A mandamus is issued to the State respondents to pay all post retirement benefits to the petitioner including pension, if not paid so far, expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed.

32. Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the Chief Secretary of the State Government to ensure immediate action for compliance in the light of the observations/directions made, particularly in para 21,28,29,30 and 31 above.

Order Date :- 9.11.2017/vkg