Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Surendra Singh And Another on 20 April, 2023
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 172 of 2023 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Respondent :- Surendra Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Chandra Shekher Singh Alongwith Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 192 of 2023 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Respondent :- Nand Lal And Another Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Anil Kumar Yadav Alongwith Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 249 of 2023 Appellant :- Deputy Director Of Education (Secondary), Aligarh Region And 2 Others Respondent :- Vishnu Lal Sharma And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rama Nand Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh,Deo Prakash Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. The issue for consideration in these three connected appeals is one and the same. They have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgement.
2. This intra-Court appeal filed by the State and the Department of Education is directed against the orders of the learned Single Judge wherein the claim of the writ petitioners for including the ad-hoc services rendered by them, before regularization of their service, in the qualifying service, as per the U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employees Contributory Provident Fund, Insurance Pension Rules' 1964, found favorable consideration. Direction was issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgement impugned to compute pension together with its dues within a time bound period and make payment. In one of the connected matters, the petitioners have been held to be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% from the date of the order till the date of actual payment, in case of failure, to make payment within the time provided therein.
3. The undisputed relevant facts of the matter are that all the writ petitioners herein had been appointed as Assistant Teachers on ad-hoc basis against the substantive vacancies in the institution in question, in accordance with the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981.
4. With the enforcement of Amendment Act No.7/2016 wef 22.03.2016 in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act' 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the services of the writ petitioners stood regularized w.e.f. 22.03.2016. It is also not in dispute that all the writ petitioners/respondents herein continued to work in permanent capacity against substantive vacancies till the date of their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. The salary allowances and other dues have been paid to the writ petitioners/respondents herein. The dispute, however, pertains to the claim of reitral dues including pension. The appellants had rejected the claim of the writ petitioners for payment of pension and hence they approached the writ court.
5. Taking note of the stand of the writ petitioners and the decisions of this Court in Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & others Writ-A No.25431 of 2018 decided on 20.12.2018 affirmed by the Special Appellate Court in Special Appeal (D) No.181 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Sunita Sharma) vide judgement and order dated 11.06.2020 as also the relevant statutory provisions, it was held by the learned Single Judge in the judgement and order dated 30.09.2022 in the case of Nand Lal Vs. State of U.P. & others Writ A No.12070 of 2022 connected with other writ petitions that the denial of the claim made by the writ petitioners was contrary to law.
6. It was held that the Rules' 1964 are specific rules applicable to permanent employees serving in the State aided education institutions of specified category. Rule 3 & 4 provides the category of the institution and the employees of the State Aided Education Institutions to whom benefits under the 1964 Rules would be applicable. It was held that there being no dispute that the writ petitioners were permanent employees on the date of retirement upon regularization granted under Section 33-G of the Act wef 22.03.2016, they would be included within the meaning of word "employee" defined in Rule 5(g) of the Rules' 1964. As per Rules 19 & 21 of the Rules' 1964, an employee who holds a substantive post of a permanent establishment, having performed ten years continuous service on the date of his superannuation would be entitled for the benefits of pensions and other dues. Under Rule 19(b), while counting qualifying services continuous temporary or officiating services followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall also be counted as qualifying services. It was, thus, held that from reading of Rule 19(a) & (b) and Rule 21, the requirement is that;- (i) the concerned employee have held a substantive post on a permanent establishment, on the date of his retirement; (ii) such employee must have performed 10 years of qualifying service on the date of his superannuation. It was noted that a retired employee would be eligible to pension, if he has completed 10 years of qualifying service on the date of his retirement. For computation of qualifying service, the provisions of Rule 19(a) and (b) have to be taken into consideration.
7. The arguments of the State-appellants/respondent therein that the writ petitioners having being regularized in a permanent vacancy after the cut off date i.e. 01.04.2005 whereafter the New Pension Scheme has been made effective, would be ineligible to pension under the Rules' 1964, has been turned down. The contention that Rule 19 (a) & (b) of the Rules' 1964 would not be applicable as the the date of regularization of the writ petitioners under Section 33G of the Act is 22.03.2016, being beyond the cut off date i.e. 31.03.2005, the petitioners are not entitled to payment of pension as they were borne in the cadre uptil 22.03.2016, has also been turned down. The U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules' 1961 and U.P. Qualifying Services for Pension and Validation Act' 2021 have been held to be inapplicable on the ground that the said enactments were covering the officers, such government servants who may hold a lien on a permanent pensionable post under the Government. The writ petitioners being teachers working in the State Aided Education Institution and not State owned institutions, could not be covered within the meaning of "officers" of the State Government. There did not ever exists any master-servant relationship between them and the State Government as may ever allow them to be described as "officers" of the State Government.
8. It was further noted that both sets of Rules namely U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules'1961 and the Rules' 1964 applicable to teachers of the State Aided Education Institutions, are Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The State had chosen to amend only the Pension Rules to government servant namely Rules' 1961 without making any parallel effort to amend another set of Rules' 1964 applicable to teachers at State-aided educational institutions. It is, thus, impossible to conceive that the petitioner's right to pension have been altered by the amendment made in U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 w.e.f 01.04.2005. The claim of the writ petitioners being covered by the Rules' 1964 had illegally been rejected for including the ad-hoc services rendered by them in the qualifying services (for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits including pension) under the Rules' 1964 by applying U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules' 1961 w.e.f. 04.04.2005.
9. In other decisions of the learned Single Judge dated 25.07.2022 and 23.05.2022 under challenge before us, the reliance is placed on the judgement of this Court in Sunita Sharma (supra) to hold that the issue pertaining to grant of pensionary benefits to the Assistant Teachers of State-aided education institutions under the Rules' 1964 had been set at rest. The writ petitioners have been held entitled to pensionary benefits in accordance with the Rules' 1964.
10. Pressing these intra court appeals, it is vehemently argued by Sri Neeraj Tripathi learned Additional Advocate General that ad-hoc services rendered by the Assistant Teachers prior to their regularization w.e.f 22.03.2016 in accordance with Section 33G of the Act, cannot be counted as temporary or officiating service on the post in question to compute the same as qualifying service within the meaning of Rules' 1964. It is submitted that the Assistant Teachers regularized under Section 33G of the Act were borne into the cadre on the date of their regularization which is 22.03.2016. By the said date, the amendments were incorporated in the U.P. Retiral Benefits Rules' 1961 and with the incorporation of sub rule (3) of Rule 2 in the Rules 1961 w.e.f. 01.04.2005, the said rules have been held to be inapplicable to employees entering service and post on or after April, 01.2005.
11. It is argued that the Old Pension Scheme as applicable to the employees of the State under the Retirement Benefits Rules 1961 has been held inapplicable to the employees borne on pensionable establishment whether temporary or permanent on entering services and post on or after 01.04.2005.
12. Rule 34 of the Rules 1964 has been pressed into service to assert that in a matter concerning pension, which is not provided specifically under Rules 1964, the provision laid down in respect to the State government employees shall apply mutatis mutandis. It is argued that the Rules 1964 will only apply to those employees, who are covered in the definition "employee" in Rule 5(g) of the Rules 1964, a permanently employed person born on the establishment of an aided institutions. The writ petitioners having been appointed in permanent capacity on regularization cannot be said to be borne in the whole time teaching establishment of an aided institution, to be covered by the definition of "employee" under Rule 5(g) of the Rules' 1964. The provisions of Rule 19(a) & (b), therefore, would not be applicable so as to compute the ad-hoc services rendered by the writ petitioners prior to their regularization so as to count them as qualifying services within the meaning of Rules' 1964.
13. Even otherwise, with the promulgation of U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension of Validation Ordinance 2020, the term 'qualifying service' as per the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules 1961 would only include the services rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service rules prescribed for the government for the post. As the writ petitioners/respondents herein have not been appointed either on a temporary or a permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service Rules prescribed by the government for the said post, the services rendered by them on ad-hoc post, on account of their appointment under the Removal of Difficulties Order 1981 cannot be computed as qualifying service. It was argued that initial appointment of the petitioners were against the short term vacancies in accordance with the paragraph No.2 of the Removal of Difficulties (second) Order 1981 which was later converted into a substantive vacancy. The continuance of the writ petitioners/respondents on ad-hoc basis against substantive vacancies in accordance with Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services) Selection Board Act' 1982 would not be of any benefit. The arguments is that the Regularization under Section 33G of the Act' 1982 with the amendments brought on 22.03.2016 cannot be equated with the appointment of a confirmed employee against a substantive vacancies on successful completion of the prohibition period after the date of appointment.
14. The provision of sub-section (6) of Section 33G of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Act 1982) has been placed before us to assert that services of adhoc teachers and the teachers who have been appointed against the short term vacancies were regularised from the date of commencement of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (amendment) Act 2016, which is 22.03.2016. The substantive appointment of the writ petitioners as teacher in the institution concerned, thus, came into being only on 22.03.2016. The writ petitioners, therefore, cannot derive benefit of services rendered by them in adhoc or short term capacity, in as much as, their appointments in such capacity cannot be said to have been made in accordance with the service rules.
15. Considering the above stand of the counsel for the appellants, we may note that the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 came into being on 27.07.1998, it was enacted to establish the Board named as Secondary Education Services Selection Board for the selection of the teachers in institutions recognized under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
16. As per the Act 1982, it was the duty of the State Government to establish Board by notification, to be called as the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board).
17. Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 conferred power upon the management to make appointment purely on adhoc basis from amongst persons possessing requisite qualification subject to the condition that such appointment would cease on the joining of the post by candidate recommended by the Commission.
18. The U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 came into being in the circumstances where the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Ordinance, 1981 was promulgated on 10th July, 1981 with a view to establish the Secondary Education Service Commission and six or more Secondary Selection Boards for selection of teachers in institution recognized under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The establishment by the Commission and the Selection Board was likely to take sometime and even after the establishment of the said Commission and Boards, it was not possible to make selection of teachers for the first few months.
19. The purpose and object of the promulgation of the (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, as noted above, further noted that there were number of vacancies in the posts of teachers in various institutions recognized under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, existed and the failure or delay in filling up of such vacancies was likely to create difficulties.
20. The procedure for selection/appointment by promotion or by direct recruitment of a teacher on purely adhoc basis had been provided therein. The U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981, was brought into force for the same object as that for enforcement of the First Order, 1981. The second Order, 1981, however, provided procedure for filling up the short term vacancies on the posts of teachers in the institutions recognized under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
21. In light of the above provisions, when we read Section 33-G which was brought into force on 22.03.2016, it provided that (i) any teacher who-
(a) has been appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in accordance with the paragraph-'2' of the (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy;
(b) was appointed on adhoc basis vacancy against the substantive vacancy in accordance with the Section 18;
(c) possesses the qualifications prescribed in accordance with the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921;
(d) has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of commencement of the amendment Act, 2016 on 22.03.2016;
(e) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by the Selection Committee in accordance with the procedure prescribed in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 33C read with clause (b) of the said sub-section; shall be given substantive appointments by the Management.
(ii) Sub section (3) of Section 33-G provided that every such teacher appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, in a substantive capacity, shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such substantive appointment.
(iii) The date of substantive appointment of the teachers appointed on adhoc basis or against short term vacancies, which were subsequently converted into substantive vacancies, was thus, treated as 23.02.2016, the date of regularisation of the services of such teacher w.e.f the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, 2016.
(iv) Sub section (8) of Section 33G categorically provides that adhoc teachers who have not been appointed either in accordance with the provisions of (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 or in accordance with the Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and were otherwise getting salary only on the basis of interim/final orders of the Court shall not be entitled for regularisation.
22. The procedure, prescribed under Section 33G of the Selection Board Act, 1982, thus, had recognized only such teachers who had been appointed in accordance with the then appointment Rules. Their selection had been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the relevant rules at the relevant point of time, on regularisation for substantive appointment, the selection had been made of only those teachers which were found suitable by the Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982.
23. The result is that the long continuous services rendered by the teachers against substantive posts in the institutions recognized under provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, had been recognized by the State Government by bringing the provision for regularisation of short term or adhoc appointments which had continued for years. In none of the writ petitions before us, it is the case of the respondent that the retired teachers were not eligible for regularisation. Moreover, as observed by the learned Single Judge the writ petitioners having earned the legal status of a permanent employee w.e.f 22.03.2016, there cannot be any dispute to their eligibility to the post. The writ petitioners having completed the tenure of their permanent employment on substantive posts had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
24. The submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the writ petitioners were borne into the cadre only w.e.f from the date of their regularisation, i.e 22.03.2016 is to be seen in light of the above facts and the rules providing for pension other retiral benefits to the teachers serving in State aided institutions. The Rules, 1964 which came into force on 01.10.1964 provided in Rule 3 (4)(a) as under:-
"3. These rules shall apply to permanent employees serving in State aided educational institutions of the following categories run either by a Local Body or by a Private management and recognised by a competent authority as such for purposes of payment of grant- in-id;
(1) Primary Schools;
(2) Junior High Schools;
(3) Higher Secondary Schools;
(4) Degree Colleges;
(5) Training Colleges.
4. (a) These rules are intended to the employees of the State aided educational institutions, three types of service benefits, viz., Contributory Provident Fund, Insurance and Pension (Triple Benefit Scheme). The quantum of the benefits and the conditions by which they are governed are described in the succeeding Chapters."
25. The word 'employee' has been defined in Rule 5(g) of the 1964 Rules in the following terms:-
"Employee" means a permanently employed person borne on the whole-time teaching or non-teaching establishment of an aided institution, excluding-(a) the inferior staff, and (b) the ministerial staff of the institutions maintained by a Local Body."
26. Rule 17 contained in Chapter V provides eligibility of 'employee' defined above for pension and amongst other conditions provided therein, "(i) retirement on attaining the age of superannuation".
27. Rule 18 contained in the same Chapter further provides that the amount of pension that may be granted shall be determined by the length of 'qualifying service' and provided as to how such computation shall be made.
28. Rule 19 relevant for our purpose is to be extracted as under:-
"19.(a) Service will not count for pension unless the employee holds a substantive post on a permanent establishment.
(b) Continuous temporary or officiating service followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall also count as qualifying service. (See also C.S.R. Para 422).
(c) Leave without allowance, suspension allowed to stand as a specific penalty, overstayed of joining time or leave not subsequently regularised, and period of breaks in service shall not be reckoned as qualifying service.
(d) Period of breaks between 2 periods of service due to termination of service, for no fault of the employee shall not be treated as interruption involving forfeiture of post qualifying service. In other cases breaks due to other causes shall result in forfeiture of past service unless condoned by Government.
(e) Time passed on earned leave shall fully count as qualifying service, but time passed on other kinds leave with allowances shall count as qualifying service as follows :
(i) If the total service is not less.than 13 years, but less than 30 years, one year of such leave shall count as qualifying service;
(ii) If the total service is not less than 30 years, two years of such leave shall counts as qualifying service.
Notes - (1) The term 'Earned Leave' means leave on full average pay.
(2) In case of a married woman employee time passed on maternity leave may be allowed to count as qualifying service, provided that the period covered by such leave and also earned leave shall not exceed what: would have been admissible had she availed of the whole of the earned leave to which she was entitled under the rules.
(3) 'Total Service' means total service rekoning from the date of commencement of service qualifying for pension and includes periods of leave referred to above.
(4) The service put in by an employee before he has completed 18 years of age or after attaining the age of superannuation unless extended by competent authority or on re-employment after retirement shall not qualify for pension.
(5) The entry relating to confirmation of an employee in the service book shall be countersigned.
(6) In cases not covered by these rules qualifying service shall be determined by Government and its decision shall be final."
29. The clear language employed in the said Rule 19 is that services rendered by an employee will not be counted for pension unless he holds substantive post on permanent establishment. The continuous temporary or officiating service followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall count as qualifying services.
30. Rule 21 further provides that an employee shall be eligible for superannuation/retiring/invalid pension only after completing 10 years of qualifying service, thus, provided the maximum limit of pension payable to employee completing 10 years or more of qualifying service.
31. Rule 34 relied by the learned Additional Advocate General may also be noted herein to deal with his argument with regard to applicability of the said provision. Rule 34 reads as under:-
"34. In matters concerning pension/family pension not provided to specifically in these rules, the. corresponding procedure laid down in respect of State Government employees shall apply mutatis mutandis."
32. A careful and conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of Rules 1964, and the language employed therein, there remains no doubt that a permanent employee, a whole time teacher, working in a permanent establishment of aided institution, having rendered 10 years or more of qualifying service, which shall include continuous temporary or officiating services followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post, shall be eligible for superannuation pension and other retiral benefits admissible under the Rules, 1964".
33. Learned Additional Advocate General tries to create a classification/distinction by providing different meaning to the words "confirmation" and "regularisation" to submit that appointment on a substantive post by regularisation in continuation of ad-hoc services rendered by the teachers in aided institutions would not be covered by the meaning given to the 'qualifying service' in sub-Rule (b) of Rule 19 of the Rules, 1964.
34. The submission is that word used in Rule 19(b) is "confirmation on the post" "in continuation of temporary or officiating service rendered interruption" whereas in the instant case the writ petitioners were regularised by virtue of the provision which was brought on the statute book on 22.03.2016. The regularisation of service of an adhoc teacher by application of Section 33G of the Act, 1982 cannot be equated with confirmation of temporary or officiating services of an employee appointed on a substantive post on probation under the selection rules.
35. The contention is that regularised teachers were appointed on probation in a substantive capacity only after their selection, from the date of their substantive appointment which was 22.03.2016. The services rendered by them in adhoc capacity, prior to the date of their regularisation cannot be equated with the temporary officiating services rendered on a substantive post, followed by confirmation in the same or another post, to be counted as 'qualifying service' within the meaning of Rule 19(b) of the Rules, 1964.
36. For this reason, the Rule 34 of the Rules, 1964 as noted above will come into play and the corresponding procedure concerning pension as laid down in respect of the State Government employees shall apply mutatis mutandis. The result is that U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules 1961 and the U.P Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 would be applicable to such employees/teachers who had entered into services on after 01.04.2005. Having been borne on a pension establishment, whether temporary or permanent, after 01.04.2005, none of the writ petitioners can be said to have completed 'qualifying service' for the purpose of entitlement of pension within the meaning of U.P. Qualifying Services for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 which has been enforced w.e.f 01.04.1961, the date of commencement of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961.
37. It was, thus, argued that the writ petitioners cannot be said to have completed 'qualifying services' for the purpose of entitlement of the pension nor they are entitled for the benefit of the old pension scheme as applicable to the whole time teachers permanently employed in establishment of an aided institution. 38. The writ petitioners having been borne into the cadre of permanent establishment of the aided institution only on 22.03.2016 cannot be held to be entitled for pension or other retiral benefits under the Rules, 1964.
39. We find inherent fallacy in the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General, for an effort to make distinction between the word "confirmation" and "regularisation".
40. Having noted the reasons and the provisions of adhoc appointment of teachers against substantive vacancies or short term vacancies which were later converted into a substantive vacancies, we find that Section 33G for regularisation of ad-hoc appointment made under the above noted provisions was in recognition of the long services rendered by the teachers appointed on adhoc basis against substantive vacancy or short term vacancy which were later converted into substantive vacancy. The procedure for regularisation under Section 33G had taken care that the teachers appointed on adhoc basis possessed qualification prescribed in the statutory provisions and were suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity.
41. It was provided in Section 33G that such teachers must have been continuously serving the institution from the date of their appointment uptil the commencement of regularisation provision w.e.f 22.03.2016. Such teachers were working against substantive vacancies and their names were recommended for substantive appointment on their selection by the Selection Committee constituted under the statutory provisions/Act, 1982 to assess their suitability to the post. The substantive appointment of such teachers was kept on probation and only after they were found suitable, they were made permanent.
42. We may further note that such teachers who were not found suitable by the Selection Committee and were found ineligible to get a substantive appointment under the aforesaid provisions had ceased to hold the appointment, thereafter, which means that only those teachers who possessed eligibility qualification and were found suitable for appointment in adhoc capacity, by the Selection Committee were appointed in the substantive capacity and allowed to continue on permanent basis. All the writ petitioners herein have been made permanent and superannuated in permanent capacity while working on a substantive post.
43. The procedure adopted for regularisation of adhoc teacher as provided in Section 33G of the Selection Board Act, 1982 does not give any room to make any distinction between confirmation of an employee or teacher working in temporary or officiating capacity or confirmation of adhoc teachers working on substantive posts in a permanent establishment. The dictionary meaning of the word "confirmation", from the Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition (South Asian Edition) shows the meaning of the word confirmation:- (i) as the act of giving formal approval; (ii) the act of verifying or corroborating; (iii) the act of ratifying a voidable estate; (iv) a declaration that corrects a null provision of an obligation in order to make the provision enforceable.
44. The same meaning can be assigned to the word "regularization" for regularization of the services of an ad-hoc appointee.
45. The distinction drawn by the learned Additional Advocate General between the word "confirmation" provided in Rule 19(b) of Rules, 1964 and "regularisation" used in Section 33G for substantive appointment of adhoc teachers working in a permanent establishment of aided institution is imaginary. The continuous ad-hoc services rendered by the teachers followed without interruption, by confirmation of their services on the substantive post on selection by the Selection Board in accordance with the statutory provision, shall qualify and be counted as "qualifying service", within the meaning of Rule 19(b) of the Rules 1964. The writ petitioners who have completed 10 years of qualifying service within the meaning of Rules, 1964, as noted above, shall be eligible for superannuation pension and other retiral benefits as applicable under the Rules, 1964.
46. We may further note that the Rules, 1964 are special provisions applicable to the teachers and non-teaching employees serving in State Aided Educational Institutions in the State of U.P. The general provisions of U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 defining the term 'qualifying service' in U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 w.e.f 01.04.1961, applicable to 'officers' defined in Rule 3(6) of the Rules, 1961, which means the Government servant having a lien on permanent pensionable post under "the Government," would not be applicable to the writ petitioners. All the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General to challenge the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 30.09.2022 in Nand Lal (supra), subject matter of challenge in connected special appeals are found without any force.
47. For the added reasons given above to the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge in the judgment of Nand Lal (supra) impugned, to allow the writ petitions no merit is found in the appeal. The other decisions of the learned Single Judge dated 25.07.2022 and 23.05.2022 in allowing the writ petitions relying upon the decision of this Court in Sunita Sharma (supra) also do not warrant any interference, for the reasons given above and the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 30.09.2022 in Nand lal (supra), affirmed hereinabove.
48. For the above discussion, all the connected special appeals are found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date:-20.04.2023 Himanshu/Harshita