Allahabad High Court
Subhash Chand vs Deputy Director Of Education ... on 6 July, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6904 of 2021
Petitioner :- Subhash Chand
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Education (Secondary)
Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner was initially appointed as an adhoc teacher in L.T. Grade on 30.10.1994. Appointment of petitioner was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 15.6.1995. Petitioner continued to work as such uninterruptedly and his service were regularised under Section 33-G of the 'U.P. Secondary Eduction Services Selection Board Act, 1982 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1982' ) on 23.2.2016. Petitioner has retired on 31.3.2021 after satisfactorily working for 27 years. His claim for payment of pension, however, has been declined by order impugned dated 1.4.2021 on the round that the petitioner entered into service after 1.4.2005. Reliance is also placed upon the ordinance issued by the State Government on 21.10.2020 i.e. U.P. Ordinance No. 19 of 2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not taken note of Rule 19 (b) of the 'Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund, Insurance Pension Rule 1964' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1964'). It is pointed out that the issue raised, herein, has already been answered in Writ Petition No. 25431 of 2018, against which an appeal filed by the State being Special Appeal (Def.) No. 181 of 2020 has also been dismissed.
Reliance is also placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal (Def.) No. 163 of 2021, wherein the plea of ordinance dated 21.10.2020 has not been accepted since the initial adhoc appointment of the petitioner was not inconsistent with the Rules and the Rules of 1964 were not taken note of. It is submitted that in view of the law already settled by this Court, impugned order cannot be sustained.
Sri Ojha, learned State Counsel submits that the authority concerned be permitted to revisit the issue in light of the law laid down by this Court.
Since the specific provision contained in Rule 19(b) of the Rules of 1964 has not been taken note of and the applicable law on the subject has been completely ignored. Writ petition stands allowed. Impugned order dated 1.4.2021 passed by respondent no. 2 cannot be sustained and is set aside. Matter stands remitted to respondent no. 1 for a fresh consideration of cause in light of Rule 19(b) of the Rules of 1964 as also the judgment of this Court which has been referred earlier. Required consideration would be made, by passing a reasoned order, within a period of 4 months from the date of presentation of copy of this order.
The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 6.7.2021
n.u.
