Allahabad High Court
Dammi Lal Shakya vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 31 August, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12829 of 2022
Petitioner :- Dammi Lal Shakya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Controversy raised in this petition has already been determined by this Court in Writ Petition No.62149 of 2017 (Lal Saheb Singh and two others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), decided on 8.9.2021. Following observations have been made in the matter in paragraph 5 to 8:-
"5. Provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964, as also the exigency where institutions were taken on aid prior to 1.4.2005, have been elaborately discussed by this Court in Buddhiram (supra). Right of the teacher/employee to deposit managerial contribution for the purposes of grant of pensionary benefits under the Rules of 1964 has been recognized. The previous cut off date for deposit of managerial contribution has already been set aside, as being arbitrary and irrational. It was thereafter that Government Orders were issued from time to time extending the time within which such deposit of managerial contribution was to be paid. The courts apparently leaned in favour of employees for extending the time, as the interest of State was adequately protected by deposit of managerial contribution alongwith interest.
6. Petitioners submit that Government Order of the year 2006 was never made available to them, and only when they were informed about the Government Order of the year 2017 that such a claim was raised by them. The State has not placed on record any material to show that the Government Order was ever circulated or made known to the institutions or their teachers like the present petitioners. The Government Order of the year 2017 has been issued in compliance of the direction issued by this Court in Buddhiram (supra). The judgment of Buddhiram (supra) laid down the law in respect of secondary institutions, which includes the institutions where petitioners worked. Consequential Government Order, therefore, could not have been limited only to higher primary institutions and ought to have been extended to all institutions on which the Pension Rules of 1964 was applicable and considered in Buddhiram (supra). It is admitted that in terms of the Government Order dated 5.2.2017 petitioners did offer to deposit the managerial contribution but the same was not accepted.
7. In view of what has been observed by this Court in Buddhiram (supra), the authorities of the State were expected to uniformly treat all the teachers and employees of educational institutions covered by the Rules of 1964, so as to give them adequate opportunity to deposit managerial contribution, particularly as the interest of State was otherwise adequately protected by payment of interest. In such circumstances, the rejection of petitioners' claim for the purposes of grant of pensionary benefit consequent upon deposit of managerial contribution cannot be sustained.
8. Writ petition, consequently, succeeds and is allowed. Orders dated 2.8.2017, passed by respondent no.2, stands quashed. The authorities shall permit the petitioners to deposit the managerial contribution alongwith interest in terms of the scheme and applicable Government Orders, within a period of two months from today. Pensionary and other benefits in terms of the Rules of 1964 shall be extended to petitioners, accordingly, within a further period of four months, thereafter."
It is not disputed by the respondents that the controversy raised in this writ petition is identical. Even previous adjudication made by this Court in the case of Mangali Prasad Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others, in Writ Petition No.17819 of 2007, decided on 20.12.2012, has not been interfered with by the Supreme Court, and therefore mere pendency of dispute before the Supreme Court would not be of any help. In such circumstances order impugned dated 10.6.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri cannot be sustained and is set aside.
This writ petition is also allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court on 8.9.2021 in Writ Petition No.62149 of 2017.
Order Date :- 31.8.2022
Ravi Prakash
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)
