Allahabad High Court
Jai Prakash Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 July, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:145979
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11639 of 2023
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnish Kumar Srivastava,Siddharth Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for Respondents 1, 2 and 3.
The case of the writ petitioner is that the fourth respondent-institution, namely Baba Kina Ram Inter College, Ramgarh, Chandauli is a recognized intermediate college under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 stands applicable.
It is further the case of the writ petitioner that he was appointed on the ad hoc basis Assistant Teacher LT Grade pursuant to the vacancy, which had fallen vacant on account of superannuation of Sri Chitharu Ram on 01.10.1992 and he was accorded joining on 22.10.1992. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that though documents were transmitted by the fourth respondent to second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Chandauli for according financial approval, but when nothing was done and the payment of salary was also not made, the writ petitioner herein instituted Original Suit No.153 of 1993 along with the fourth respondent, Committee of Management before the Civil Judge, Varanasi. In the said case, an injunction order was passed on 30.10.1993, whereby a direction was issued for payment of salary to the writ petitioner. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner was paid salary w.e.f. 1993. However, in the meantime, U.P. Act No.5 of 1992 was amended and with the insertion of Section 33-G the petitioner claims to be covered under the said provision, as according to him, any teacher other than the Principal or the Headmaster, who was accorded promotion or direct recruitment on or after 07.08.1993, but not later than 25.01.1999, is to be considered for regularization, subject to suitability, eligibility and other ancillary aspects. The claim of the writ petitioner is that though the papers were transmitted way back on 14.10.2016 before the second respondent, but till date, nothing has been done and the writ petitioner has retired on 31.03.2022, and only G.P.F. has been paid, but the pension has not been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the various judgments of this Hon'ble Court on the said subject, the writ petitioner is entitled to not only payment of pension, but also to be accorded regularization that would be a posthumous regularization after retirement.
Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the third respondent, Joint Director of Education (Secondary) Varanasi Region, Varanasi to accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization under Section 33-G of the 1982 Act.
Sri Gaya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the entitlement of the writ petitioner for being accorded regularization in terms of Section 33-G of the 1982 Act seeks determination at the first instance by the third respondent looking into the facts as to whether the case of the writ petitioner stands covered under the said provision or not and, particularly, about the fate of the civil proceedings initiated by the Committee of Management along with the writ petitioner.
Sri Gaya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel further submits that no fruitful purpose would be served in detaining the petition on board and they do not propose to file any response to the writ petition. However, the writ petitioner may represent his cause before the third respondent while filing a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition and the third respondent shall advert to the core issues and thereafter, decide the entitlement of the writ petitioner after putting to notice the fourth respondent.
To the said submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same.
Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off without seeking any response from the respondents, granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the third respondent while filing a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition, who on receipt of the same, shall put to notice the fourth respondent in writing in advance and thereafter proceed to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, adverting to the core issues regarding eligibility, suitability and applicability of the provisions contained under Section 33-G of the 1982 Act as well as the import and impact of the pending civil suit as instituted by the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.
Needless to point out that this Court has adjudicated the matter on the basis of the averments and the arguments advanced today, thus passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has adjudicated the matter on merits and the third respondent shall proceed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner without being influenced or obsessed by any of the observations made hereinabove.
Order Date :- 21.7.2023
N.S.Rathour
