Allahabad High Court
Neeraj Kumar Paliwal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 October, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192331
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15963 of 2023
Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar Paliwal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Parul Srivastava,Namit Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
On the oral request of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, he is permitted to implead the Authorized Controller of the Intermediate College Kushmiliya, District Jalaun at Orai as the fifth respondent.
Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Shahi, the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for Respondents 1 to 3.
In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the fourth and fifth respondents.
The case of the writ petitioner is that the fifth respondent, Intermediate College Kushmiliya, District Jalaun at Orai is an institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the provisions of U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 stand applicable.
According to the writ petitioner, he was appointed on ad hoc basis as an Assistant Teacher on 26.06.1992, approval whereof was accorded on 29.08.1992 by the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun at Orai. The writ petitioner claims to have been accorded joining on 28.08.1992 and he discharged his duties till he submitted his application on 14.12.2021 before the Institution in question seeking voluntary retirement. As per the writ petitioner, the institution in question forwarded the entire papers with regard to the voluntary retirement of the writ petitioner before the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun at Orai who in turn on 31.03.2022 proceeded to accord approval to the voluntary retirement of the writ petitioner. It is the case of the writ petitioner that though he was serving on ad hoc basis on the post in question, but his services were never regularized and he tendered 29 years 7 months service.
The grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the fact that the writ petitioner has continued on adhoc basis for such a long span of period and in the wake of the provisions contained under the 1982 Act regarding regularization, his services have not been regularized and he has been denied the benefit of payment of pension etc. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner relies upon the judgment in the case of Shakuntala Vs. Director of Pension and others reported in 2002 (3) AWC 2241, so as to contend that in the wake of the provisions contained under the Fundamental Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook, even an employee/ teacher, who seeks voluntary retirement is also entitled to pension.
Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the Respondent no.2 to regularize the services of the writ petitioner and to pay pension to the writ petitioner. Alternate prayer has been made for disposal of the representation dated 04.07.2023, which is claimed to have been submitted before the second respondent, Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Jhansi Division, Jhansi.
Sri P.K. Shahi, the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the issue as to whether the provisions contained under the fundamental Rule 56 stand applicable in the case of the writ petitioner needs determination at the first instance by the second respondent and further as the writ petitioner stood voluntary retired, thus a conscious decision is to be taken as to whether the writ petitioner's services are to be regularized so as to facilitate payment of pension, if any. According to the learned Standing Counsel, a conscious decision is to be taken by the second respondent strictly in accordance with the claim of the writ petitioner for the payment of the said benefits. He further submits that he does not propose to pass any response to the writ petition.
Additionally, it has been sought to be argued by Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel that the writ petitioner may represent his cause before the second respondent.
To such a submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection to the same and gracefully accepts the same.
Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the second respondent, along with a comprehensive representation accompanied with self-attested copy of the writ petition and who shall, on the receipt of the same, put to notice the fourth and the fifth respondents and thereafter proceed to decide the entitlement of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order bearing in mind the following fundamental and core issues: (a) the issue with regard to the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization and payment of pension on the face of the fact that the writ petitioner stood voluntarily retired; the applicability of the Statutory provisions/ Government Order as well as the provisions contained under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules; (c) any other ancillary or incidental issues connected with the same.
Needless to point out that the writ petitioner has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents and in absence of any representation on behalf of the fourth and fifth respondents, thus passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has adjudicated the matter on merits and it shall be open for the second respondent to summon the record and to examine the matter strictly in accordance with law after putting the fourth and fifth respondents to notice in that regard.
With the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 6.10.2023
N.S.Rathour
