Allahabad High Court
Ali Haider Rizvi vs State Of U.P. Thru.Secy.Basic ... on 16 March, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1458 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ali Haider Rizvi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Secy.Basic Edu. Dept. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Bhushan Singh Nishad
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Abhay Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Rais Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Sri C.B. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules on the death of his wife Late Smt. Iffat Fatma, who was working on the post of Head Mistress in Primary School, Baithuiyaya (Second), Uttraula who died in Harness.
3. The petitioner was appointed on 14.10.2003 as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Mahuadhani, Uttraula under the Dying in Harness Rules application by means of Government Order dated 04.09.2000. The appointment was on a fixed pay of Rs. 2750/-. It is further stated that the petitioner was granted a regular pay scale from 14.10.2008. After serving for about 18 years, the petitioner has retired from service on 31.03.2021 as Head Master from Junior High School, Primary School, Rahramaafi, Uttraula, Balrampur. The petitioner has since made several represent ions for his pension to the respondents but no order in this regard has been passed and ultimately by means of order dated 16.12.2021, the Accounts and Finance Officer, Basic Shiksha, Balramapur has communicated to the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary post on 14.10.2003 and he was given a regular post only from 13.10.2008 and consequently he is entitled only under the New Pension Scheme which was made effective from 01.04.2005.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner assailing the said order has submitted that the petitioner had joined on a substantial vacancy under the Dying in Harness Rules on 14.10.2003 which was prior to 01.04.2005 and consequently he is entitled to the old pension scheme which was effective till 31.03.2005.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that this aspect of the matter has been duly considered in a bunch of writ petition leading being Writ Petition No. 7762 (SS) of 2017 (Ravindra Nath Taigor Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 28.02.2018 where this Court has considered the entire statutory scheme applicable to the petitioners and the Rules governing their services and has concluded that "Since the petitioners were appointed prior to the year 2005, they are not impacted by the notifications dated 07.04.2005. They are persons who were appointed permanently before 01.04.2005 and are entitled to be treated at par with all other similarly appointed permanent assistant teachers in basic school, for the purpose of their pension and provident fund benefits. Since, the Government Order dated 15.11.2011 is contrary to the aforementioned rules/directions of the State Government issued under Section 13 of the Basic Education Act, hence, the same is not sustainable."
6. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner having been appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules on substantial vacancy in the year 2003 which was during the period when the old pension scheme was effective. Even otherwise, the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by the case of Ravindra Nath Taigor (Supra) and consequently the ratio of the said judgment applies squarely in the case of the petitioner and hence he is also made entitled for the benefits granted by this Court in the said case.
7. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.12.2021 is quashed. The petitioner is held to be entitled for the old pension scheme and is applicable to the similarly appointed Assistant Teachers and respondents are further directed to release all the dues including G.P.F and other pensionery benefits and other dues which may be admissible to the petitioner.
8. Let the said due shall be payable to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the competent authority.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 16.3.2023
Ravi/
