Allahabad High Court
State Of U P And 2 Others vs Subhash Chand Saini on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116263-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 382 of 2023
Appellant :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Respondent :- Subhash Chand Saini
Counsel for Appellant :- Rama Nand Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Nipun Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
In re: Civil Misc Delay Condonation Application no.02 of 2023
The delay in filing the special appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay condoned.
The appeal is treated to be filed in time.
Office shall allot regular number to the appeal.
Order on appeal
Heard Sri Apurva Hajela learned counsel for the State appellant and Sri Nipun Singh learned counsel for the respondent.
This intra court appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in holding that the adhoc services rendered by the writ petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher, which were regularised under Section 33G of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 shall be treated as 'qualifying service' for the purpose of computation of retiral benefit.
There is no dispute about the fact that the writ petitioner had been regularised and was working on a substantive post till the date of his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation.
The question raised herein has been considered and answered by us vide judgment and order dated 20.04.2023 passed in Special Appeal Defective no.172 of 2023 (State of U.P and others vs Surendra Singh and another) wherein by reading of the provisions of the U.P. State Aided Educational Institutions Employee's Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, 1964, it was held that from the language employed in the said rules, a permanent employee, whole time teacher working in the permanent establishment of aided institution, having rendered 10 years or more of qualifying service, which shall include continuous, temporary or officiating services followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall be eligible for superannuation pension and other retiral benefits admissible under the Rules, 1964.
The arguments of the State appellants therein that the writ petitioners have borne into the cadre of permanent establishment of the aided institutions only on 22.03.2016, on the date of insertion of Section 33G in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and, as such, they cannot be held to be entitled for pension or other retiral benefits under the Rules 1964, has been turned down.
The distinction sought to be drawn by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State appellant between the words 'confirmation' occurring in Rule 19(b) of the Rules 1964 and 'regularisation' in Section 33G has been found to be imaginary. It was held that the Rules' 1964 is a special provision applicable to teachers and non-teaching employees serving in State Aided Education Institutions in the State of U.P.
It was held that the general provisions of U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 defining the term "qualifying services" in U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 w.e.f 01.04.1961, applicable to "Officers" defined in Rule 3(6) of the Rules 1961 which means the Government servant having a lien on permanent pensionable post under the Government would not be applicable to the writ petitioners.
The judgment and order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Nand lal vs State of U.P and others in Writ A no.12070 of 2022 connected with other writ petitions has, thus, been affirmed.
For the reasoning given in the judgment and order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Nand lal (supra) and the judgment and order dated 20.04.2023 passed by us in Special Appeal Defective no.172 of 2023, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the decision of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023/Harshita
