Allahabad High Court
Sandhya Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 12 November, 2024
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177173
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6207 of 2020
Petitioner :- Sandhya Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Ref:- Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.4 of 2021
1. The present application has been filed with the prayer to implead Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) 3rd Region Bareilly as party respondent No.6.
2. It is argued that the Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) 3rd Region Bareilly is necessary party and prays that be impleaded.
3. In this view of the matter, the Impleadment Application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to implead the Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) 3rd Region Bareilly as respondent No.6 during the course of the day.
Ref:- Writ Petition
1. Heard Sri Ghanshyam Das Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dharmendra Prasad Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. Petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 29.08.2019 whereby petitioner's application for grant of pension has been rejected on the ground that the management contribution was not paid during the period when the institution was not under grant-in-aid as also the fact that similar writ petitions are pending adjudication before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the institution concerned bearing the name Seth Tulsidas Kilachand Higher Secondary School, Tulsi Vihar, Fatehganj West, District Bareilly is a recognized institution imparting education up till the intermediate level and was brought under the list of grant-in-aid vide order dated 11.12.1991 but subsequently due to dispute in the Committee of Management, actual aid was not provided by the State Government. It is submitted that petitioner was appointed Assistant Teacher in the said institution on 05.10.1982 and was subsequently confirmed in service on 05.10.1985. It is submitted that due to grant not being paid, Writ Petition no.2016 of 2004 was filed before this Court and in pursuance of directions issued therein, subsequently vide order dated 08.07.2005 the grant was resumed to the institution and petitioner was paid salary from the State exchequer right up till the date of superannuation of petitioner on 31.03.2016.
4. It is submitted that, however, due to the fact that actual grant was not given to the institution from 1991 till 2005, the management contribution as required to be paid in terms of the U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employees Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, 1964(herein after referred to as the Rules of 1964) was not made which forms the basis of the rejection order.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid issue has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Mangali Prasad Verma and 2 others (Special Appeal Defective No.678 of 2013) whereby this Court while interpreting the Rules of 1964 has also held that the cut off date for making contribution as indicated in the Government Order dated 26.07.2001 was arbitrary. It has also been held that subsequent Government Order dated 28.01.2004 also does not have any application with regard to the Rules of 1964. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the matter as also the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ - A No.6328 of 2022 (Harivansh Singh v. State of U.P. and others) whereby this Court following the decision in State of U.P. and others v. Mangali Prasad Verma and 2 others(supra) where this Court has permitted petitioner therein to deposit the management contribution.
6. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents on the basis of counter affidavit has submitted that although the institution was taken under grant-in-aid in the year 1991 but actual aid was provided since year 2005 and therefore the petitioner would be covered under the new-pension scheme and not the Rules of 1964.
7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is undisputed that the institution in question was taken under grant-in-aid in the year 1991 although due to dispute in Committee of Management, the actual aid could not be given to the institution. However, it is also undisputed that the order bringing the institution under grant-in-aid was not rescinded at any time and it was only upon resolution of disputes in Committee of Management that the grant-in-aid was resumed in year 2005. As such, it cannot be held that the institution was brought under grant-in-aid for the first time in year 2005. Therefore, the submission that the new pension scheme would be applicable with regard to petitioner does not hold good ground and is rejected.
8. Upon perusal of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Mangali Prasad Verma and 2 others(supra), it is evident that right of Teachers employed in private aided institutions for grant of pension has already been considered in terms of Rules of 1964 and the issue decided also pertains to consideration as to whether services rendered by the petitioner at the time the institution was unaided are required to be counted for determination of qualifying services for pension or not. The aforesaid question has been answered in the affirmative in favour of the petitioner-teachers therein.
9. In the subsequent judgment in Harivansh Singh(supra), this Court following State of U.P. and others v. Mangali Prasad Verma and 2 others(supra) as well as another judgment and order dated 29.01.2015 rendered in Writ A - No.28679 of 2009 (Krishna Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. and others) has granted liberty to the petitioner therein to deposit the management contribution whereafter the State entities were required to provide pension in terms of the Rules of 1964.
10. Upon perusal of aforesaid judgments, it is evident that the same are squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
11. Learned counsel for petitioner, upon instructions, submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the management contribution within a period of one month from today.
12. In view of aforesaid submissions, the petitioner is granted liberty to deposit the management contribution with respondents within a period of one month from today whereafter his pensionary benefits including pension shall be calculated and paid in terms of the Rules of 1964 within a period of three months from the date the management contribution is deposited.
13. Considering the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, 3rd Region, Bareilly is quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari.
14. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 12.11.2024
saqlain
