Allahabad High Court
Surendra Singh vs Deputy Director Of Education And 3 ... on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7266 of 2021
Petitioner :- Surendra Singh
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Education And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Instructions filed today is taken on record.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was appointed on 29.6.1995 and approval to the said appointment was granted on 18.6.1996 by the District Inspector of Schools. It is stated that subsequently on 22.3.2016, the services of the petitioner were regularized and the petitioner retired on 31.3.2016.
Initially, the claim of the petitioner for pension was rejected by order dated 10.10.2017 against which the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ-A No. 12924 of 2018 (Surendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and six others). The said writ petition was disposed off by an order dated 07.01.2020 directing the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and six others (Writ-A No. 61974 of 2011) decided on 01.03.2012. After remand by this Court, a fresh order has been passed on 06.10.2020 denying the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the initial appointment of the petitioner as well as the regularization order was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act as such the claim of the petitioner was not justified.
I have perused the said order. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner the respondent has gone into the question of validity of initial appointment as well as regularization order and without there being any challenge to both of them have gone into the questions of the validity of the said order without any authority of law. Even in terms of the impugned order dated 06.10.2020 it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the date of appointment of the petitioner either in the initial joining or in the date of regularization as such there is no hesitation to hold that qualifying service was completed by the petitioner. The order dated 06.10.2020 is based upon comments on the initial appointment order as well as the regularization order which is beyond jurisdiction of the respondent and has been done in wholly perverse manner. The question of calculation of qualifying service 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.
In view of the judgments, as recorded above, the order dated 06.10.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 1, Deputy Director of Education, Meerut cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 06.10.2020 is set aside with directions to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 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 1995.
It is clarified that the services of the petitioner rendered from 1995 upto 22.3.2016 shall also be counted for the purposes of qualifying services and the petitioner shall be entitled to pension in accordance with law.
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.
The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the said order.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021
Puspendra
