Allahabad High Court
Satyaveer Singh Sheoran vs Deputy Director Of Education And 3 ... on 2 August, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6612 of 2021
Petitioner :- Satyaveer Singh Sheoran
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Education And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh,Deo Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was appointed on 27.7.1998 and approval to the said appointment was granted by the District Inspector of Schools. It is stated that subsequently on 22.3.2016, the services of the petition were regularized and the petitioner retired on 31.3.2020.
3. Initially, the claim of the petitioner for pension was rejected by order dated 15.2.2020 against which the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ A No. 10364 of 2020 (Satyaveer Singh Sheoran Vs. District Inspector of Schools and 4 others). The said writ petition was disposed off by an order dated 16.12.2020 directing the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma Vs. State of UP and 5 others (Writ A No. 25431 0f 2018 decided on 20.12.2018). After remand by this Court, a fresh order has been passed on 10.3.2021 denying the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his services were regularized on 22.3.2016, as such, the tenure of the services rendered by the petitioner did not fall within the qualifying service in terms of Rule 19(b) of the Uttar Pradesh State Aided-educational Institutions Employee's Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964 (in short '1964, Rules'). The said dispute is no more res integra and was specifically considered by this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra) wherein this Court considered the scope of Rule 19 (b) of 1964, Rules and held that services rendered by the petitioner therein as ad hoc would also be counted for the purpose of Rule 19 (b) of the Rules, 1964. Against the said judgment dated 20.12.2018, Special Appeal Defective No. 181 of 2020 has also been dismissed by means of an order dated 11.6.2020. Similar issue also came up before this Court in Writ A No. 8043 of 2020 (Vijendra Singh Vs. District Inspector of Schools and 3 others) which was allowed by this Court on 1.10.2020 and the special appeal preferred against the said order has also been dismissed on 19.2.2021 in Special Appeal Defective No. 163 of 2021. Thus, the issue of counting of ad hoc services is well settled.
4. In view of the judgments, as recorded above, the order dated 10.3.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2, District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 10.3.2021 is set aside with directions to the Respondent No. 2 to grant pension to the petitioner counting the services rendered by the petitioner with effect from the date of initial joining in the year 1998.
5. It is clarified that the services of the petitioner rendered from 1998 upto 22.3.2016 shall also be counted for the purposes of qualifying the services and the petitioner shall be entitled to pension in accordance with law.
6. The payment of pension shall be ensured to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of a copy of this order.
7. The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the said order.
8. Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 2.8.2021
vinay
