Allahabad High Court
Dr. Jai Prakash Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief ... on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1450 of 2023
Petitioner :- Dr. Jai Prakash Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Edu. And Research And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Dwivedi,Vinod Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Uttam Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 5.
Present petition has been filed claiming that the petitioner was appointed as Research Assistant and continued to work with the respondent, however, in respect of Research Assistants of one Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, a decision was taken by the State Government on 22.07.1999 absorbing the said Research Assistants with Narendra Dev University as Assistant Professor.
It is argued that the persons similar to the Research Assistants who were working with the Narendra Dev University approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.836 (SB) of 1994 'Research Assistant Association and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.', which was decided by this Court on 18.08.1999 and directions were issued to the State Government to extend the benefit of Government Order dated 22.07.1999 to the Research Assistants of the Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology also. It is stated that the said order has attained finality.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that Writ Petition No.1630 (SB) of 2002 'Suresh Babu Pal and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.' was filed which was decided finally on 05.10.2006 wherein a writ was issued in favour of the petitioner directing respondents to extend the same benefits of the pay scale, which have been extended to the petitioners of Writ Petition No.836 (SB) of 1994 ignoring the Government Order dated 17.01.2003. It is stated that the said judgment has also attained finality.
Subsequent to the order passed by this Court as recorded above, a decision was taken in the 99th (Special) Meeting of the Academic Council of the respondent University wherein the Research Assistants were declared as Teachers w.e.f. 19.06.2007 (Annexure - 8); the name of the petitioner finds place in the said list at Serial No.19.
The petitioner claims that subsequent to the declaration in the 99th (Special) Meeting, the petitioner continued to get all the benefits which were available to the teachers including the promotional pay scale.
Learned counsel for the petitioner bring on record the order dated 23.07.2007 whereby the petitioner was absorbed as Assistant Professor in Horticulture Department of the University at Kanpur. The petitioner has ultimately retired on 07.01.2021 and thus, his claim is for the retiral dues to which the petitioner is entitled by virtue of having worked as a Teacher and subsequently, Assistant Professor with the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent argues that certain decisions are pending with the State Government. He argues that in respect of the Narendra Dev University, earlier a decision was taken on 22.07.1999 granting benefits to all Research Assistants, however, subsequently, the State Government passed an order confining the said benefits to the 19 persons mentioned in the said order. The said action of the State Government was challenged in Writ Petition No.327 (SB) of 2000 (Ram Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was decided on 19.02.2021. The said judgment in Writ Petition No.327 (SB) of 2000 was challenged by the State Government in Special Appeal No.75 of 2022 (State of U.P. & Ors. v. Ram Pratap Singh & Ors.) wherein the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside and certain benefits were granted to the petitioners of Writ petition No.327 (SB) of 2000 insofar as the recovery against them was concerned.
In the light of the said two orders, learned counsel for the respondent states that the matter is pending consideration before the State Government and it is the State Government who is to take a decision.
Considering the arguments raised at the Bar, what transpires is that the benefits that were extended by the State Government to the Research Assistants of Narendra Dev University were extended to the petitioner by virtue of directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.836 (SB) of 1994 and Writ Petition No.1630 (SB) of 2002. Not only the benefits were extended by the said order, the University themselves appointed the petitioner as Teacher and subsequently, as Assistant Professor (in the case of the petitioner). There is no order on record that any action has been taken for recalling the benefits that flew in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the two judgments or the resolution passed in favour of the petitioner or the subsequent order passed in favour of the petitioner by the University itself.
Once the University has appointed the petitioner as Assistant Professor and has continued to treat him as an Assistant Professor, which is revealed from the various benefits that have been granted to the petitioner while he was in service, the stand taken by the respondent University is wholly untenable. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and ordered accordingly.
Respondent University is directed to compute and pay the retiral dues to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.
As the petitioner has been denied his valuable rights, including the pension and other retiral dues without any valid justification or reason, the respondent University shall pay the interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of retirement till actual payment/realization.
At this stage, Shri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner was never appointed as Assistant Professor and he was only adjusted. This argument is fallacious and is contrary to the record (Annexure - 9).
Order Date :- 16.2.2023
nishant
