Allahabad High Court
Razia Khatoon vs State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief ... on 12 July, 2021
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1427 of 2020
Petitioner :- Razia Khatoon
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Secondary Edu. Lko. & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Pratap Singh,Surendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Parul Vajpayee, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents through video conferencing.
Notice has been issued to opposite party no.5 but service report to that effect has not been filed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that opposite party no.5 i.e. Committee of Management is a proforma party, therefore, the matter may be decided finally.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.12.2017 passed by opposite party No.3 as contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make payment of family pension, gratuity and arrears of the remaining salary from April, 1991 to 15.8.1994 (excluding seven months' salary of medical leave) along with interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue in question is fully covered with the judgment and order dated 20.12.2012 in re; Mangali Prasad Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Others, which is contained in Annexure No.6 to the writ petition. Operative portion of judgment in re; Mangali Prasad Verma (supra) is being reproduced herein below:-
"11.Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 13.12.2006 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, respondent no.5 as well as the condition imposed by Government Order dated 28.1.2004 fixing the cut off date are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner, for deposit of the Management's contribution with interest within a period of two months and after deposit of the contribution, the respondents shall extend the benefit to the petitioner of the Government Order dated 28.1.2004 and Rules 1964 for payment of pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.1995 within a further period of two months. The petitioner is entitled for payment of the arrears of salary with 12% interest w.e.f. 1.7.1995 till the date of payment."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the various decisions pronounced by this Court, the petitioner is fully eligible and entitled for the family pension and gratuity and the Government Order dated 28.1.2004 in which cut off date has been fixed has already been set aside by this Court in re; Mangali Prasad Verma (supra). On being asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner that reference of Government Order dated 28.1.2004 has not been indicated in the impugned order dated 30.12.2017 (Annexure No.1), learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. He has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, which is an order dated 7.5.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6108 of 1996, whereby direction for disposal of the representation was issued with the further direction that the post retiral dues be paid to the petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, when the order dated 7.5.2007 (Annexure No.2) was not complied with, the petitioner filed a contempt petition and in the contempt petition, counter affidavit was filed by the opposite party, wherein they have indicated the very fact that pursuant to the Government Order dated 28.1.2004, the family pension etc. of the petitioner has not been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has indicated this fact in para-7 of the writ petition, which is being reproduced herein below:-
"7. That denial of family pension and gratuity is based upon the government order dated 28.4.2004 though in the impugned order dated 30.12.2017, the government order dated 28.1.2004 has not been referred but para 6F of the counter affidavit filed in the contempt petition reads as under:-
"Even it has come into effect under Uttar Pradesh Government Order dated 28.1.2004 that family pension and gratuity will be paid to the teachers of secondary schools which were affiliated to primary section. A true copy of the government order dated 28.1.2004 is annexed as Annexure No.CA-4."
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as the judgment in re; Mangali Prasad Verma (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the present writ petition being identical with the facts and law laid down in re; Mangali Prasad Verma (supra), therefore, this writ petition is decided finally in terms of judgment and order dated 20.12.2012 passed in re; Mangali Prasad Verma (supra).
Accordingly, the present petitioner is extended the benefit of judgment and order dated 20.12.2012 passed in re; Mangali Prasad Verma (supra) and the impugned order dated 30.12.2017 passed by opposite party no.3 (Annexure No.1) is hereby quashed and the opposite parties are directed to make payment of family pension, gratuity and arrears of salary to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8%, instead of 12% as provided in re; Mangali Prasad Verma (supra), forthwith, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy/ computer generated copy of this order.
Thus, the writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 12.7.2021
RBS/-
