Allahabad High Court
Ravendra Prasad vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195437
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16474 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ravendra Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghvendra Pratap Singh,Man Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Man Bahadur Singh along with Sri Raghuvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the respondent nos.1 to 5.
In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to the sixth respondent.
The case of the writ petitioner is that pursuant to the exercise undertaken by the Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allenganj, Prayagraj against Advertisement No.1/2002, dated 29.09.2002, selections were held for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in different subjects and the last date of submission of the application form was 31.10.2002. The writ petitioner applied under OBC category and a select panel was published on 17.11.2004, wherein the petitioner was declared as successful under the OBC category and was allotted Seth Mukund Lal Inter College, Ghaziabad. However, despite the fact that the District Inspector of Schools required the said institution to issue appointment order, the same was not issued and the writ petitioner could not joined the post in question. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached the Board for reallocation of the institution, pursuant thereto the Board by virtue of the order dated 17.11.2004 sought report from the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad and the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad in turn on 25.02.2005 forwarded certain inputs that in the institution, Seth Mukund Lal Inter College, Ghaziabad another candidate had joined, thus the writ petitioner could not be accorded joining. Thereafter, the papers were forwarded and pursuant to the query of the Board, the Manager of the sixth respondent-institution informed that the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Social Science) under OBC category is lying vacant and there is no objection certificate in that regard. Thereafter, a fresh placement order was issued on 08.07.2005 and the writ petitioner pursuant thereto joined.
Grievance of the writ petitioner is that the entire selection was prior to the enforcement of the New Pension Scheme, which came into effect on 01.04.2005, thus the claim of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered under the Old Pension Scheme. However, now the writ petitioner is being treated to be under New Pension Scheme, which is patently illegal, as it is the apathy and the lethargy on the part of the respondents, which created such a situation.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment in the case of Arun Kumar Shahi and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others in Writ - A No. 5208 of 2017, decided on 04.07.2023.
Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for payment of pension under Old Pension Scheme and not under New Pension Scheme.
Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 5 submits that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to the said benefit needs determination at the first instance by the Director Secondary Education, U.P., Camp Office at Lucknow, who shall address to the claim of the writ petitioner. He further submits that the writ petitioner may represent his cause before the second respondent and the second respondent shall consider the claim of the writ petitioner. It is the further submission of the learned Standing Counsel that he does not propose to file any response to the writ petition.
To such a submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection and he 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 without seeking any response granting liberty to the writ petitioner to represent his cause before the second respondent, while filing a representation along with a self attested copy of the writ petition on the receipt of the same, the second respondent shall proceed to decide the entitlement of the writ petitioner after putting to notice the sixth respondent within a period of three months from the date of the production of the certified copy of the order, bearing in mind the following fundamental and the core issues :-
a) The issue with relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for being accorded benefits under Old Pension Scheme, as the writ petitioner claims to have been selected prior to the enforcement of the New Pension Scheme and in the wake of the fact that there happened no vacancy available to place him in the erstwhile institution;
b) The applicability in the case of Arun Kumar Shahi (supra);
c) Any other ancillary and incidental issues;
Needless to point that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents, thus passing of the order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated upon the merits of the matter.
In case, the second respondent is of the opinion that the matter needs to be addressed by any other authority, then the papers be transmitted and the information in this regard be furnished to the writ petitioner and the sixth respondent in writing in advance, so as to facilitate disposal of the claim within the time stipulated herein-above.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 10.10.2023
S Rawat
