Allahabad High Court
Chheda Lal Gangwar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 3 October, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189406
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14759 of 2023
Petitioner :- Chheda Lal Gangwar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Pradeeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for respondent nos.1 to 4.
2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to the fifth respondent.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that D.A.V. Kalicharan Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bareilly is an institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Act No.24 of 1971, stands applicable.
4. As per the writ petitioner, he was initially appointed in the year, 1988 on the post of Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade and with effect from 1998, he became Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade and on account of retirement of one Sri Shanti Kumar Tiwari, Principal of the institution in question, he was allowed to officiate with effect from 01.04.2016 and he superannuated on 31.03.2018. According to the writ petitioner, he was not been entitled to the payment of salary from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2018 on the post of Principal of the institution in question.
5. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to pay differences of salary to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2018 and to revise the pension of the petitioner.
6. Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand submits that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to be accorded the said benefits needs determination by the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, who shall address to the claim of the writ petitioner in the light of the judgment in the case of Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2014 (8) ADJ 617. He further submits that he does not propose to file any response to the writ petition.
7. To such a submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same.
8. 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 granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the third respondent, who shall on the receipt of the same decide the entitlement of the writ petitioner for the payment of pension strictly in accordance with law, bearing in mind the working of the writ petitioner, the entitlement, as per the law of the land within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order after putting to notice the fifth respondent, institution.
9. Needless to point out that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the matter.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 3.10.2023
S Rawat
