Allahabad High Court
Smt. Aisha Begum vs State Of U.P. Thru The ... on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7016 of 2014
Petitioner :- Smt. Aisha Begum
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru The Prin.Secy.Basic Edu. Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- I.H. Farooqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.
Petitioner's husband was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Government Inter College and joined his duties on 25.7.1964. Thereafter, he applied for the post of Assistant Regional Manager, in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'UPSRTC') through an advertisement published by U.P. Public Service Commission and was selected and appointed as such on 20.3.1979. He left his job as an Assistant Teacher in Government Inter College on 19.3.1979. He expired while in service on 5.9.1994. His pension was not prepared by counting his earlier services rendered as Assistant Teacher in Government Inter College. The petitioner moved a representation in this regard before the authorities, which was also rejected by Joint Director of Education, Sixth Region, Lucknow by order dated 11.8.2014. Hence, petitioner has filed present writ petition, challenging the aforesaid order dated 11.8.2014 and also the order dated 22.7.2014 passed by Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik), Allahabad as well as for a mandamus commanding the respondents to grant family pension and gratuity by including the services rendered by husband of petitioner in Education Department as an Assistant Teacher.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, another person, namely, P.P. Pandey also claimed similar benefits and his claim was allowed by U.P. State Public Service Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 1.2.2017. Similarly situated other persons were also granted similar benefits by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal by judgment and order dated 21.6.2011. Against the said order, Writ Petition No.417 (SB) of 2012 (U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow vs. B.D. Gupta and others) was filed before this Court in which, after referring to other persons also, who were granted similar benefits by Court, High Court dismissed the said writ petition by judgment and order dated 7.10.2017. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
"....So far as the first argument made by learned counsel for the petitioners in respect to the delay on the part of the claimant in approaching the State Public Services Tribunal is concerned, no such argument has been raised by the petitioners/U. P. S. R.T.C. before the Tribunal, which is evident from the material on record and for the first time, the petitioners cannot take the same before this Court.
The second argument made by learned counsel for the petitioners in respect to the grant of pensionary benefit to the claimant that the Tribunal has erred in granting pensionary benefits to the claimant as previous department in which he has rendered services has not sent his contribution, has got no force because in this regard the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that similarly situated persons, namely, Sri M. A. Siddiqi, Hari Lal, Lajja Shanker Mishra and J. N. Singh have been given the pensionary benefit by counting their past services rendered by them in their previous department as well as in U.P.S.R.T.C. So the judgment passed by the Tribunal is in conformity with the provisions as provided under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Further, it is not in dispute between the parties that in an identical circumstances, on the same set of facts, Writ Petition No.21337 (SB) of 2017 as mentioned above has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 11.09.2017.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission and anr. vs. Harish Kumar Purohit and ors. (2003) 5 SCC 480 held that a bench must follow the decision of a coordinate bench and take the same view as has been taken earlier. The earlier decision of the coordinate bench is binding upon any latter coordinate bench deciding the same or similar issues.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta and ors. vs. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and ors. (2010) 13 SCC 336 held that a coordinate bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another coordinate bench of the same court. The rule of precedent is binding for the reason that there is a desire to secure uniformity and certainty in law. Thus, in judicial administration precedents which enunciate rules of law forum the foundation of the administration of justice under our system. Therefore, it has always been insisted that the decision of a coordinate bench must be followed. (Vide Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel and ors. AIR 1968 SC 372).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, under challenge in the present writ petition.
In the result, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed."
The said matter is stated to be final between the parties. Hence, aforesaid judgment squarely covers the present case.
In view thereof, impugned orders dated 11.8.2014 and 22.7.2014 are set aside. respondents are directed to pay pension to the petitioner by including the services rendered by husband of petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in Education Department. Consequential orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.
The writ petition stands allowed.
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
Order Date :- 2.5.2023
Sachin
