Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1985/2025 on 25 November, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:10501
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS 1985/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional
CSC, for the State.
(2) Petitioner has challenged a
communication, issued by Chief Education
Officer, Haridwar to Manager/Principal,
Kisan Vidyalaya Inter College, Laksar,
Haridwar, on 1.5.2025. By the said
communication, Manager/Principal of the
concerned College was informed that since
petitioner was never regularised on the post
of Assistant Teacher, LT Grade and his
status was that of ad hoc employee,
therefore, he is not entitled for pension
and, accordingly, proposal submitted by the
Management is being returned. By means
of this writ petition, petitioner has sought
the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter
dated 1.5.2025 (Annexure-9) issued by Chief
Education Officer Haridwar, letter dated 15.5.2025
(Annexure-10) Principal/Manager of the KV Inter
College Laksar & report/letter dated 11.10.2025
(Annexure-12) raised by Principal/Manager of KV Inter
College Laksar Haridwar.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus, commanding and directing the
respondents to forthwith implement the binding
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Civil Appeal No. 1673 of 2012, titled District Inspector
of School & Anr. Vs. Rishi Pal & Ors and accordingly to
compute retiral benefits of petitioner including
pension, gratuity, leave encashment and all other
service benefits and dues, on the basis of continuous
notional service from 30.08.1992 till the date of
superannuation of the petitioner and to release the
entire said arrears of retiral dues with admissible
interest without any further delay"
2025:UHC:10501
(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner
though admits that petitioner was
appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant
Teacher, LT Grade and his services were
never regularised, however she relies upon
the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No. 1673 of 2012.
Operative portion of the said judgment is
extracted below:
"In such circumstances, we direct
restoration of the respondent-writ petitioner in the
post in question. So far as the back wages is
concerned, we direct a lump sum payment of
Rupees Ten Lakhs to be paid to the respondent-
writ petitioner within a period of three months
from today. He shall also get notional benefit of
continuation of service and the said benefit shall
be factored in for the computation of his retiral
benefits as well. In the event the post from which
the respondent-writ petitioner was removed from,
stands filled up, as an exceptional case, we are
directing creation of a supernumerary post to
accommodate the respondent-writ petitioner
whish shall cease after his superannuation.
As we are awarding back wages of
Rupees Ten Lakhs in lumpsum to the respondent-
writ petitioner, the costs imposed by the High
Court shall stands set aside."
(4) Learned State Counsel submits
that Hon'ble Supreme Court has provided
that petitioner will be entitled to continuity
of service and the said benefit shall be
factored in for computation of his retiral
benefits, if at all he is entitled to pension
and other retiral benefits. He further
submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court has
not provided for grant of regular status to
the petitioner, therefore petitioner
continued as ad hoc Assistant Teacher after
his reinstatement.
(5) This Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned State Counsel.
2025:UHC:10501
Petitioner served as ad hoc Assistant
Teacher. His services were terminated,
however, pursuant to judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court, he was reinstated
in service as ad hoc Assistant Teacher, LT
Grade. Since his services were not
regularised, therefore, the Chief Education
Officer was right in holding that he is not
entitled for pension. No statutory provision
or government order has been produced by
learned Counsel for the petitioner, which
may support petitioner's claim for pension.
Although petitioner was given continuity of
service by Hon'ble Supreme Court, which
was to be factored in for computation of
retiral benefits, however the issue whether
as ad hoc teacher, petitioner would be
entitled to pension and other retiral
benefits, was not examined in the judgment
relied upon by the petitioner. Petitioner was
awarded rupees ten lakhs in lumpsum as
back wages, which has been paid to him.
Petitioner has failed to point out any
infirmity in the impugned communication,
issued by Chief Education Officer.
(6) Thus, this Court do not find any
reason to interfere in the matter. Writ
petition fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
25.11.2025
Pr
PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957
BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.11.26 14:27:06 +05'30'
2025:UHC:10501
