Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Singh Sengar 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:150132
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12154 of 2023
Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh Sengar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Daya Prasad Singh, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears for Respondents 1 to 5.
In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the sixth and the seventh respondents.
The case of the writ petitioner is that in pursuance of the Advertisement published on 30.04.1999 by the sixth respondent institution, namely Sri Lahri Baba Inter College Vavli (Jalaun), District- Jalaun in daily newspaper, recruitment/ appointment was sought to be made on LT Grade Assistant Teachers against the short term leave vacancy. The writ petitioner claims to have applied in pursuance thereof and he was issued an appointment order dated 07.05.1999 and approval according to the writ petitioner was granted on 11.8.1999 and he joined the post in question on 12.08.1999. According to the writ petitioner he was also assigned the duties as an Officiating Principal in the year 2007. However, he retired on 31.03.2019. As per the writ petitioner, his claim for regularization ought to have been considered within the time so as to enable him to get the benefits of pension, which is admissible to the regular counterparts. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner relies upon the judgment passed in Writ-A No.25431 of 2018, Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & 5 others, decided on 20.12.2018 and in Special Appeal (D) No.52 of 2023 (Director of Education & 2 others vs. Mahesh Babu & Another) decided on 20.01.2023 in order to buttress his submission that even otherwise in view of the rules purported to be under the Uttar Pradesh Aided-Educational Institution Employee's Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964, the petitioner is entitled to be even otherwise paid pension.
Prayer in the present petition is for according the pension to the petitioner since the date of joining, i.e. 11.08.1999 till the date of superannuation i.e. 31.03.2019 and to issue a formal order for regularization.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be the case of the writ petitioner, however, as per the own saying of the writ petitioner, he has not been regularized and thus the question of payment of pension has no valid basis, however, as per the learned Standing Counsel, the writ petitioner may approach the Regional Level Committee, which is to be headed by Joint Director of Education, Madhyamik, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, who shall accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization and for the pension in that regard.
Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the Deputy Director Education of the concerned Region shall also consider the claim of the writ petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the proposition of law laid down in Special Appeal (D) No.52 of 2023 (Director of Education & 2 others vs. Mahesh Babu & Another) decided on 20.01.2023 and has further made a statement that he does not propose to file any response to the writ petition.
To the said submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner no objection to the same and 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 represent his cause before the third respondent, with a comprehensive representation accompanied with self-attested copy of the writ petition and on the receipt of the same, the third respondent shall consider the claim of the writ petition for regularization and pension, while passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
In case, in the opinion of the third respondent, some other authority is to address the claim of the writ petitioner, then he shall transmit the documents to that authority and inform the petitioner and sixth respondent in writing and take its version.
Needless to point out that the writ petitioner has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents, thus passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has adjudicated the matter on merits and the second respondent shall pass an order with independent application of mind without being influenced or obsessed with any of the observations made hereinabove.
With the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 27.7.2023
N.S.Rathour
