Allahabad High Court
Dr.Umesh Tiwati vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 2 August, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7949 of 2021
Petitioner :- Dr.Umesh Tiwati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kedar Nath Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner claims to have been appointed in a recognized high school initially in the year 1991 on adhoc basis. The institution then was not receiving any aid. It was only with effect from 01.04.1996 that the institution was taken on grant in aid list and the Director of Education on 17.03.1997 granted financial approval to petitioner's appointment. Petitioner states that with effect from 01.04.1996 petitioner was receiving salary from the state exchequer. Petitioner also granted selection grade on 19.10.2001. Petitioner thereafter was appointed by the Board as Principal and he joined as such on 15.09.2008 in Rashtriya Intermediate College, Kaudia Mishra, District Deoria. Selection grade as Principal has also been granted to petitioner with effect from 15.09.2018. Petitioner ultimately has retired on 31.03.2021. Grievance is that pension as per his entitlement has not been paid to him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma vs. State of U.P. and others being Writ Petition No.25431 of 2018, decided on 20.12.2018, to contend that even adhoc services followed with regularization could be counted for the purposes of pension by virtue of rule 19(b) of the Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institution Employees Contributory Provident Fund Pension Rules, 1964. It is also pointed out that special appeal filed in that matter has also been dismissed. Contention is that despite such facts brought on record, the authorities are not considering petitioner's claim for payment of pension.
Learned Standing Counsel has invited attention to a communication sent by the Deputy Director of Education as per which petitioner's claim is not covered under the regularization rules, and therefore, he is not entitled to pension.
From the facts it is apparent that petitioner continued to receive salary from the state exchequer since 01.04.1996 and he has also been subsequently selected as Principal and he has also worked for more than ten years as Principal. It is, therefore, difficult to conceive as to why petitioner would not be entitled to pensionary benefits.
The communication of Deputy Director holding that petitioner is not entitled to pension does not contain any reason, otherwise.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon respondent no.2 to accord specific consideration to petitioner's claim in light of the judgment in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra) as also the facts, noticed above, by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The communication dated 23.03.2020 since contains no reason, therefore, would not stand in the way of consideration of petitioner's claim. All consequential benefits would be extended in terms of such determination with two months, thereafter.
Order Date :- 2.8.2021
Ashok Kr.
