Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ram Adhar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 19359 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 19359 ALL
Judgement Date : 27 July, 2023

Allahabad High Court
Ram Adhar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 27 July, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:151219
 
Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12998 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Adhar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi,Kaushal Kishore Mani Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. Heard Shri Kaushal Kishore Mani Tripahti, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Shri P.K. Sahai. learned Additonal Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2. Though the writ petition was entertained on 18.06.2016 while calling counter affidavit from the respondents but it appears notices were not issued to the fifth respondent.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by learned Standing Counsel who appears for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 which is available on record. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the writ petitioner which is also taken on record.

4. Since the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel have made a statement that the writ petition be decided at the admission stage thus with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of.

5. The notices upon the fifth respondent is not being issued, in view of the nature of the order passed today.

6. Consequent to the death of the writ petitioner, a substitution application was filed by the legal heirs which was allowed on 23.05.2022 and now the substituted heirs have entered in place of the original petitioner.

7. The case of the writ petitioner is that the fifth respondent, the Committee of Management/Authorized controller Shri Gandhi Intermediate College, Khadda, District Kushinagar is recognised under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Act No. 05 of 1982 and U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 stands applicable. As per the original writ petitioner namely, Ram Adhar Singh, he was appointed as the Assistant Teacher on 01.08.1974 in the attached Primary Vidyalaya and he superannuated on 30.06.2003 which has been wrongly prescribed in various paragraphs of the writ petition on 30.06.2015. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which it has been sought to be demonstrated that the date of retirement is 30.06.2003 and not 30.06.2015. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the aforesaid Primary Vidyalaya came in grant-in-aid in the year 1989 and pursuant to the government order dated 28.02.1990, the selection grade was made admissible to the original writ petitioner and promotional pay-scale was also payable to the original writ petitioner, however despite the repeated request pension was not being paid.

8. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the third respondent, Deputy Director of Education 7th Region, Gorakhpur, to consider and to grant pension to the writ petitioners. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners relies upon a decision in Writ A No. 7390 of 2010 (Dharambrat Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Others) decided on 25.10.2018 in order to buttress his submission.

9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel sworn by the then District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar dated 01.08.2022 in which in para 6, it has been admitted that the writ petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2003 and died on 07.05.2021.

10. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that they being the legal heirs are entitled for grant of pension and the grounds so taken in the counter affidavit that since in the wake of the Government Order dated 30.06.2004 and 28.01.2004, now they are to be governed by under the General Provident Funds Scheme thus the writ petitioner cannot be made entitled to the said benefits. Shri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel in his usual fairness has argued that from the counter affidavit it is clear that the original writ petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2003, thus these government orders will not come into action and would not also apply.

11. According, Shri Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, the case of the writ petitioner for the grant of pension needs to be considered by the third respondent, Deputy Director of Education 7th Region, Gorakhpur who shall address to the claim of the writ petitioners and decide the same strictly in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner further submits that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit and he gracefully accepts the statement made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

13. Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of without seeking any response from the respondents granting liberty to the writ petitioners to approach the third respondent Deputy Director of Education 7th Region, Gorakhpur who shall proceed to examine the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order after putting to notice to fifth respondent who though has been impleaded as a party respondent but notices have not been issued. The third respondent shall consider the fundamental and the core issues:

A. The entitlement of the original petitioner in the wake of the Government orders and the rules in question in the legal backdrop that he stood retired on 30.06.2003.

B. The competing claims of any other person's viz-a-viz the writ petitioners too claiming to be the legal heirs of original writ petitioner.

C. Any incidental or attached issues which may crop up at the time of determination of the rights of the writ petitioners.

D. The authority shall also bear in mind the judgment in the case of in Writ A No. 7390 of 2010 decided on 25.10.2018, in the backdrop as to whether the same is applicable in the facts of the case.

14. Needless to point out that the order passed herein may not be construed to be an expression that same is on merits as the fifth respondent has not been heard before passing of the order.

Order Date :- 27.7.2023

Ashutosh

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter