Allahabad High Court
Smt. Satyavati vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 8 January, 2020
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41921 of 2015 Petitioner :- Smt. Satyavati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Tripathi Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Short controversy that arises for determination in the facts of the case is as to whether the age of superannuation of a teacher employed in recognised Intermediate institution run by the Uttar Pradesh Rajy Vidyut Utpadan Nigam' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Nigam'), is 58 years or 62 years. The order passed by the Deputy Secretary of the Corporation dated 31.10.2014 is also challenged, which records that though petitioner is entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years but would be entitled to pension treating the age to be 60 years and get only 20% encashment amount alongwith denial of gratuity.
The issue as to what would be the age of superannuation in respect of teachers who are employed in educational institutions established by the 'Nigam' and is otherwise recognised under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, has already been adjudicated by this Court in the case of Rama Shanker Singh and others Vs. U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Lucknow and others, 2006(4) ESC 2826 (All). Having examined the statutory scheme, this Court has categorically held as under in Paras 24 to 26 of the judgment, which is reproduced:-
"24. In this view of the matter, I am clearly of the view that Regulation 21 Chapter II as amended by notification date 6.1.2005 is applicable to Teachers, Principals and Head Masters of all recognized institutions whether aided or un-aided and otherwise contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is therefore, rejected.
25. Once it is found that Regulation 21 Chapter III as amended by notification dated 6.1.2005 is applicable to a recognized unaided non-government institution, rest of the matter is already covered by the various earlier judgments of this Court providing that the teachers of recognised educational institutions of the respondents are also governed by the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 including provision regarding age of retirement, subject of course, to the decisions of the Court in pending Special Appeals.
26. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 12.1.2004 communicating the petitioners regarding their retirement on attaining the age of 58 years is quashed and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to continue in service in accordance with Regulation 21 Chapter III of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as amended by notification dated 6.1.2005."
In one of the Writ Petition i.e. Writ Petition No.30776 of 2012, an interim protection has already been granted by this Court, permitting the petitioner to continue. Interim order dated 3.7.2012 is reproduced:-
"Notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the Standing Counsel. Respondents no. 4 and 5 are represented by Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. Respondents pray for and are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
List on 07.08.2012.
On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the controversy with regard to the age of retirement of teachers in recognized Intermediate Colleges run and managed by the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. has been settled under the judgment of the High Court in the case of Rama Shankar Singh vs. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. reported in 2006 (4) ESC, 2826. The High Court has held that teachers of such institutions would retire only on attaining the age of 62 years and not at the age of 60 years.
In view of the aforesaid, petitioner has made out a case for grant of interim order.
Till the next date of listing, respondents shall not interfere with the continuance of the petitioner as teacher in the institution concerned and he shall be paid his salary accordingly.
However, this interim order will not continue beyond the date when the petitioner attains the age of 62 years."
It appears that the order dated 3.7.2012 is the only basis for the authorities to hold that the petitioner would be entitled to pension treating the age of superannuation to be 60 years and would get only 20% encashment amount alongwith denial of gratuity.
This Court is at a loss to understand as to how the respondents could attach conditions to the order passed by this Court which are neither specified there in nor can be reasonably culled out from the interim protection granted by this Court. Alongwith the counter affidavit, a Government Order dated 4.2.2004 has been annexed which apparently will have no application in the facts of the present case inasmuch as the said Government Order only applies to primary institutions and not to a recognised intermediate institution.
Writ Petition according succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Secretary dated 31.10.2014, cannot be sustained and is quashed. Petitioner is held entitled to continue in service in the educational institution upto the age of 62 years and would also be entitled to all retiral benefits, in accordance with law. The consequential retiral benefits which are due and payable to petitioner shall be released within a period of three months from today, failing which the petitioner would alsobe entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
Order Date :- 8.1.2020 n.u.