Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Dr. Om Prakash Gupta on 19 December, 2023
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240514-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 750 of 2023
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Respondent :- Dr. Om Prakash Gupta
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.,C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Khare
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal is by the State challenging an order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent Dr. Om Prakash Gupta and granting him sessions benefit and thereby allowing him to continue till 30.06.2015. The rejection of claim of respondent-petitioner for such sessions benefit vide order dated 31.12.2014 and 31.03.2015 has been interfered with and those orders have been quashed.
It appears that the sessions benefit were originally allowed to teachers of Degree Colleges vide Government Order of 21.03.1984. The sessions benefit was subject to conditions of satisfactory service; physical and mental fitness and actual teaching of a subject regularly in the college. This Government Order came to be modified on 23.09.2011. The purpose of issuing the Government Order was to simplify the procedure to be followed for grant of sessions benefit as it was usually resulting in inordinate delay. In para-2 of the subsequent Government Order Dated 23.09.2011, this object is specifically noticed. However, in para-3 of the Government Order, the benefit of sessions benefit has been allowed subject to three conditions mentioned in para-2 which are more or less similar to the conditions mentioned in the Government Order of 1984. Learned Single Judge has construed the subsequent Government Order as modifying the previous Government Order of 1984 and doing away with the requirement of satisfactory working and conduct as a Lecturer/ Principal.
Learned State counsel has invited out attention to clause 2 & 3 of the subsequent Government Order of 23.09.2011 in order to submit that the requirement of satisfactory work continue to be one of the requirements in the subsequent Government Order of 23.09.2011 in addition to physical and mental fitness and continuous teaching by the teacher. It is therefore, submitted that learned Single Judge has erred in interpreting his subsequent Government Order.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner however, submits that in the event the submission of the State is accepted then the very object of Government Order dated 23.09.2011 would loose its purpose. He further submits that the service conditions of the respondents- petitioner was otherwise satisfactory and no disciplinary proceedings of any kind was either initiated or pending against him and no orders of punishment were otherwise passed. It is also submitted that even to some of those teachers who were facing disciplinary action also the sessions benefit has been allowed by the authorities and, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the authorities that working of the respondent- petitioner was not satisfactory, is erroneous.
We have considered the respective submissions and have perused the materials on record. We find some substance in the contention advanced by the State counsel with regard to satisfactory work and conduct of the teacher being one of the conditions for grant of sessions benefit. Grant of sessions benefit is a matter of policy and its grant is subject to conditions stipulated therein. The condition of satisfactory conduct and working are specified as necessary condition in both the Government Orders. It is therefore, not right to stated that such condition would be waived only because the State wanted to simplify the procedure. What exactly is intended to be achieved by the subsequent Government Order of 23.09.2011, however, is not very clear. The affidavit filed by the State authorities also does not furnish any specific justification in that regard.
Notwithstanding the issuance of subsequent Government Order, it is not disputed that grant of sessions benefit is under a policy of the State and while granting such benefit, it is always open for the State to put conditions under which such benefit is to be granted. The satisfactory work and conduct of a teacher having been specifically stipulated in both the Government Orders, it cannot be said that it would not be an essential condition for grant of sessions benefit. To that extent we do not approve of the reasoning assigned by learned Single Judge in his order. The reasoning assigned by learned Single Judge in the judgment, shall not be treated as a precedent.
However, in the facts of the case, we find that there were no disciplinary proceedings ever initiated by the respondent-petitioner nor any order of punishment etc has ever been passed against him. The reasons assigned to uphold the services of the writ petitioner as unsatisfactory thus cannot be approved of as certain trivial issues alone has been highlighted for the purpose. The fact that respondent petitioner continuously worked till the age of superannuation without any disciplinary action etc is undisputed. No punishment of any kind otherwise was imposed upon him. In such circumstances, we do not find any justification for the authorities to have denied the sessions benefit to the respondent petitioner. Though for a different reason, we therefore, refuse to interfere in the present appeal with the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge. The special appeal filed by the State is accordingly consigned to records, subject to the observations made above.
It is also provided that in the event retiral benefits of the respondents along with sessions benefits have been withheld so far, the same shall be released to him expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months.
Order Date :- 19.12.2023
C. MANI
