Smt. Suman Singh vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 16665 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:37489
 
Court No. - 17
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 536 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Suman Singh
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy.Secondary Education Dept.Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra,Ajeya Mishra,Pawan Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Undisputedly, the petitioner's husband was Teacher of Primary Section, namely, Bharti Bhawan Sanskrit Uchattar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Saraiya, Raje Sultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, which was attached to recognized Sanskrit institution. Her husband was died on 01.11.2020 and he has been paid his salary and other consequential benefits admissible for the post of Assistant Teacher. After the death of her husband, the petitioner approached for family pension which has been denied on the ground that since there is no Government Order extending benefit of pension to the Teachers of Primary School Section attached to the recognized Sanskrit institution.

3. Since the issue in question is no more res-integra in view of the judgment and order dated 9.11.2017 passed in Writ-A No.9218 of 2013, Markanday Mani Vs. State of U.P. and others, therefore, detail facts of the case are being ignored.

4. It would be apt to indicate certain paragraphs of the judgment of Markanday Mani (supra), which are as under:-

"7. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, supports the impugned order and submits that since there is no Government Order extending benefit of pension to teachers of primary section attached to recognized Sanskrit Institution and as such the petitioner is not entitled for pension. Benefit of the Government Order dated 20.1.2004 and 3.12.2003 can not be extended to the petitioner inasmuch as these Government Orders do not specifically provide for extending the benefit to the teachers working in primary school attached to Sanskrit institution.

12. The definition of the word "institution" given in Section 2(b) of the Act 1971 and Section 2(e) of the Act 1978 specifically includes Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya or a Sanskrit Vidyalaya receiving maintenance grant from the State Government.

13. In the case of Ramesh Upadhya (supra) the facts were that the petitioners in that case were teachers of primary section of "Sri Alpeshwarnath Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya Janewar, Fatehganj, Jaunpur" which was the recognised Sanskrit Institution imparting education for primary section, Junior High School, Purva Madhyama (High School), Uttar Madhyama (Intermediate) and Shastri (B.A.). Thus that institution like the institution involved in the present writ petition, are imparting education from Class 1 upto graduate level and are recognised institution affiliated to Sampurnand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. In the aforesaid case teachers of "Alpeshwarnath Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya" were aggrieved with non payment of salary to primary section teachers in Sanskrit institution from the State fund and as such they filed the aforesaid writ petition i.e. Ramesh Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1993 ESC 360, which was allowed by this Court and a general mandamus was issued as under :

"In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed and a mandamus is issued directing the Respondents to pay salary to the primary section teachers in Sanskrit institutions through the State as is done in case of primary school teachers of High School and Intermediate College. Also, the salaries to be paid to the former must be the same as that paid to the latter, i.e. in accordance with the G.O. dated 28.2.90 and 6.9.90 as amended. The petitioners will also be entitled to other consequential benefits like group insurance, General Provident Fund, retirement benefits etc. which are being made available to the Primary section teachers in High School and Intermediate Colleges."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

14. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment in the case of Ramesh Upadhya (supra) the State of U.P. preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2470 of 1994 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Upadhyay and others) which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 12.7.1995. Despite a general mandamus having been issued by this Court in the case of Ramesh Upadhya (supra) the State respondents were not extending the benefits and were not obeying the general mandamus and as such certain teachers including the petitioner falling under the same class filed a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine. Against that order the petitioner and others filed a Special Appeal No.558 of 1993 (Sant Prasad Mani and 16 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was allowed holding as under:

"We have perused the impugned order, memo of appeal and other documents annexed to it. We are satisfied that this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Upadhyay's case (supra). In the impugned order the learned Single Judge has not even referred to the said judgment, even though as submitted by Sri Padia a copy of the judgment dated 18.1.1993 was annexed as annexure to the writ petition. As noted earlier the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in limine merely holding that the petitioners should approach the Vice Chancellor of the University first. In the facts and circumstances of this case discussed above the impugned order is unsustainable in law.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The order dated 15.5.1993 is set aside and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993 is allowed in terms of the Judgment dated 18.1.1993 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29290 of 1990 (Ramesh Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and others)."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

31. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 1.12.2012 can not be sustained being arbitrary and illegal. Hence it is quashed. A mandamus is issued to the State respondents to pay all post retirement benefits to the petitioner including pension, if not paid so far, expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed."

5. It has been informed by Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents that assailing the order dated 9.11.2017, State of U.P. has filed Special Appeal Defective No.234 of 2018 and the said appeal is still pending for consideration. No interim order has been granted in that special appeal.

6. Since the issue in question has already been decided by the Single Judge and the special appeal is pending for consideration before the Division Bench, as aforesaid, therefore, this writ petition is decided finally in terms of judgment and order dated 9.11.2017 in re; Markanday Mani (supra).

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The present petitioner is granted the benefit of judgment and order dated 9.11.2017 passed in re; Markanday Mani (supra). A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 12.3.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), 9th Region, Faizabad, which is contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

8. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no.3 i.e. the Deputy Director of Secondary Education, 9th Region, Faizabad (Ayodhya) to pass appropriate orders in respect of making payment of post retiral benefits to the petitioner including pension and thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar shall pass consequential order. Opposite party no.4 shall pass appropriate orders, as aforesaid, with expedition, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court and thereafter the District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar shall pass consequential order, as aforesaid, within a further period of ten weeks.

9. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 25.5.2023

akverma