Allahabad High Court
Padmaker Prasad Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 27 July, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:151057
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9906 of 2023
Petitioner :- Padmaker Prasad Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
The present case is listed as connected case at serial No. 21 of the list of fresh supplementary cases, leading writ petition Writ A No. 5537 of 2023 (Nand Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Others). The learned counsel for the rival parties have made a statement at bar that the controversy in the present writ petition is different and distinct from the controversy in the leading writ petition, thus according to them the writ petition be detached and heard separately.
Heard Sri Ravi Pratap Singh learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Sri Shailendra Singh learned Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7.
In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today, notice is not being issued to sixth respondent.
The case of the writ petitioner is that there is an institution by the name of Bahudhandhi Inter College, Sonahita, District Jaunpur which is governed under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and 24 of 1971 stands applicable. As per the writ petitioner consequent to promotion of Indra Deo Upadhyay on 11.10.1990 a post of Assistant Teacher (Sangeet) fell and the writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Sangeet) and he joined the post in question on 15.01.1990 since approval was not being granted the petitioner preferred Writ A No. 11014 of 1991 whereby pursuant to the interim order dated 09.11.1992 the petitioner was accorded joining and the said order was confirmed on 08.01.1998 while disposing of the writ petition. In para 8 it has been submitted that the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur proceeded to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner on 02.09.1993 and the writ petitioner continued to work in the post in question and on 24.06.2017 the services were regularized under Section 33G of the 1982 Act with effect from 22.03.2016. Though, the writ petitioner had been paid GPF and he superannuated on 31.03.2023 as Assistant Teacher in Sangeet.
The grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the fact that he is entitled to the payment of pension by counting the ad hoc services rendered by him since 1993 but the same has not been paid. he seeks to rely upon the provisions contained in Rule 19(b) of Uttar Pradesh State Aided Education Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules 1964 as well as the judgment in the case of Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Others passed in Writ Petition No. 25431 of 2016 decided on 20.12.2018 as well as affirmed by the Special Appellate Bench in Special Appeal (D) No. 181 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Sunita Sharma) on 11.06.2020 and the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 30.09.2022 in Nand Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Others Writ A No. 12070 of 2022. He also seeks to rely upon the judgments in the case of Sunita Sharma and Nand Lal (supra) and the recent judgment dated 20.04.2023 passed in the bunch of the appeals, leading appeal Special Appeal (D) No. 172 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Singh & Others).
Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the seventh respondent, Deputy Director of Education Vth Region Varanasi Region, District Varanasi to accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner.
Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is to be entitled for being accorded pension computing the services on ad hoc basis is to be decided in terms of the law of the land in the judgments in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra), Nand Lal Yadav (supra) and Surendra Singh (supra). Thus, according to him no fruitful purpose will be served in detaining the writ petition on board as he does not propose to file any response.
Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self attested copy of the writ petition before the seventh respondent Deputy Director of Education Vth Region Varanasi, District Varanasi who shall on the receipt of the same thereafter proceed to examine the claim of the writ petitioner in the light of the judgments referred to above and the observations made hereinabove within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Thus, before proceeding to decide the same the said institution be also put to notice and in case some input is required then time being given to it and thereafter the matter be decided.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2023
Rajesh
