Allahabad High Court
Ramji Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 6 October, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194866
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14867 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ramji Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Krishna Yadav, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel who appears for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
2. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to the 6th respondent.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the 6th respondent, Amar Shahid Inter College, Ayar Varanasi is an institution recognized under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 1971 stands applicable.
4. According to the writ petitioner one Sri Lok Nath Misra who was working as Assistant Teacher in the 6th respondent Institution got promoted on the post of lecturer (Civics) pursuant to a vacancy and the petitioner was accorded adhoc appointment as Assistant Teacher on 23.10.1987. Since the writ petitioner was not made admissible to the payment of salary so he preferred writ petition No. 30634 of 1991 in which orders were passed pursuant where to the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi, 5th respondent proceeded to grant salary to the writ petitioner. The petitioner thereafter superannuated on 31.3.2020. It is further case of the writ petitioner that by virtue of an order dated 11.9.2017 the writ petitioner was regularized on the post of Assistant Teacher, LT Grade in the wake of the provisions contained under Section 33(G) of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 with effect from 22.2.2021, however, when the writ petitioner raised his claim for pensionary benefits then the same stood negated on the on 22nd February, 2021 on the ground that the writ petitioner is not entitled to get pension as he has not put in 10 years of regular continuous service.
5. The said order was subject matter of challenge in Writ A No. 11439 of 2022 (Ram Ji Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.) which came to be decided on 4.8.2022 setting aside the order in question remitting the matter back to the authorities.
6. According to the petitioner now an impugned order has been passed on 2.5.2023 by the Assistant Director of Education on behalf of the Director of Education, Prayagraj negating the claim of the writ petitioner.
7. Questioning the said order the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the order in question is patently legal contrary to law particularly in view of the fact that the writ petitioner continued to perform the duty of Assistant Teacher from 23.10.1989 till the date of retirement dated 31.3.2020. He further submits that the services also stood regularized from 22.3.2016 in the wake of provisions contained under Section 33(g) of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and thus in view of the provisions contained under Section 19 of 1964 Rules the services undergone on adhoc basis is to be considered and included for the purposes of payment of pension. He further submits that he was regularized by an order dated 11.9.2017 w.e.f. 22.3.2016, however, he also successfully competed the probation period also. Thus by all eventualities he is entitled to take pension and other benefits including the services rendered on adhoc basis.
9. He seeks the rely upon the decision in Special Appeal No. 172 of 2023 (State of U.P. and 2 others Vs. Surendra Singh and Another) decided on 20.4.2023.
10. Countering the said submission, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel who appears who appears for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on the other hand submits that might be that the writ petitioner is correct and the judgments relied upon applies in the present facts of the case, thus the issue in question needs fresh determination by Director of Education, Prayagrag. He further submits that the order dated 2.5.2023 be set aside and the matter be remitted back to it to pass a fresh order in the light of the judgment as noticed above.
11. He further submits that he does not propose to file any response to the writ petition.
12. Ordinarily, in normal circumstances this Court could have addressed the issue on merit however in the wake of the stand taken by the respondents this Court is not venturing into the same, however, leaving it open to the 2nd Respondent to pass a fresh order.
13. Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel, the writ petition is being decided on the following terms:
(a) The order dated 2.5.2023 passed by Director of Education, Uttar Prayagraj Prayagrag is set aside.
(b) Matter stands remitted back to the Director of Education, 2nd respondent to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within three months in the light of the provisions of law as well as the judgment in Special Appeal Defective No. 172 of 2023 (State of U.P. and 2 others Vs. Surendra Singh and another) after putting notice to the 6th respondent.
Order Date :- 6.10.2023
Kumar Manish.
