Allahabad High Court
Smt. Hemlata Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 31 August, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3387 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Hemlata Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Edu. And Skill Development Lko. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Dwivedi,Pradeep Chandola
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Chandola, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of the petitioner after completing training at Government Industrial Training Institute, Charbagh got appointment through Employment Exchange on the post of Instructor (Mathematics) on 27.01.1981. After his appointment, process of regularisation was carried out, but the petitioner's husband was not found fit for regularisation only due to the fact that he did not had experience of 3 years at the time of interview by the Selection Committee. Due to non consideration for regularisation, petitioner made an application to the State Government for relaxation in three years work experience.
3. It has been next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner's husband was not regularised, he was granted benefit of promotional pay scale from time to time. He was given first promotional pay scale on 27.02.1999 and second promotional pay scale on 22.12.2007. Aggrieved by the non consideration for regularisation, petitioner's husband alongwith other similarly placed instructors approached this Court by filing various writ petitions and in Writ Petition No. 8860 of 2010, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 04.07.2013, benefit of judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 3425 (S/S) of 2010 - Suresh Chandra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Others was given to the petitioner.
4. It is further stated that aforesaid judgment of learned Single Judge was assailed by the State in special appeal which was allowed, setting aside the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. During pendency of the aforesaid litigation, the petitioner's husband superannuated on 30.09.2016 and after his retirement only GPF has been paid to him and no other post retiral dues have been paid, he also died on 28.03.2022.
5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government rejected the claim of the husband of the petitioner alongwith Ashok Kumar Dixit who was one of the Instructor amongst 11 others, by means of order dated 16.08.2019. The aggrieved persons approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No.4319 (S/S) of 2010, which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 29.04.2020, and order dated 16.08.2019 was set aside with direction issued to the respondents to pay post retiral dues including pension, gratuity to the petitioners, whenever they are superannuated. Against order dated 29.04.2020 the State preferred special appeal, which was also dismissed by means of order dated 20.07.2019. Against the judgment of Division Bench passed in special appeal, the State Government preferred SLP being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19758 of 2021, which was also dismissed by the Apex Court by means of order dated 12.11.2021 and the judgment and order of learned Single Judge in Writ petition No. 4319 of 2010, attained finality, and thereafter Ashok Kumar Dixit has been granted all the benefits by means of order dated 31.12.2021.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that her husband is entitled to the same benefit as has been granted to Sri Ashok Kumar Dixit inasmuch as by means of order dated 16.08.2019, case of the petitioner was rejected alongwith the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit and order dated 16.08.2019, has been finally set aside by the learned Single Judge by means of order dated 29.04.2020, which has been up held by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP, filed by the State.
7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition by submitting that firstly husband of the petitioner was not qualified and therefore he is not eligible for being regularised and secondly in the light of The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021), the petitioner's husband is not covered by the provisions of Validation Act, 2021 and hence is not entitled for post retiral dues.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has submitted that her husband's case is clearly covered by the Validation Act, 2021 and as his case is similar to that of Ashok Kumar Dixit, who has been granted post retiral benefits by the State Government after coming into effect of the Validation Act, 2021.
9. It is argued by learned Standing Counsel that while complying with the order of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit, it has been stated that said order is being complied only in respect to Ashok Kumar Dixit.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. It is noticed that once order passed by the State Government dated 16.08.2019, has been set aside and similarly situated individual who approached this Court and this Court after considering entire factual matrix, concluded that petitioner's husband therein is entitled for all pensionary benefits and said judgment has attained finality, therefore, the petitioner's husband who is similarly situated and whose case was also rejected by the State Government by order dated 16.08.2021, is entitled to be treated similarly as Ashok Kumar Dixit.
12. This Court do not find any force in the objections raised by learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner's husband is entitled to the same benefits as held by this Court in its judgment and order dated 29.04.2020, passed in Writ Petition No.4319 (S/S) of 2010, and the same having been up held in SLP by Hon'ble Apex Court.
13. In the light of above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass necessary orders in compliance of this order, keeping in mind the fact that petitioner's husband is entitled for benefits as have been granted in the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit. Let necessary compliance be made within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 31.8.2022
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
