Allahabad High Court
Amba Prasad Paliwal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:177933 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15377 of 2023 Petitioner :- Amba Prasad Paliwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bheem Singh,Aalok Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
It has been reported that the lawyers are abstaining from work.
The case of the writ petitioner as worded in the writ petition is that there is an institution by the name of Shri Laksshman Das Yajurved Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Khurja, District Bulandshahr, the fourth respondent in which the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr has been appointed as a Authorised Controller. The said fact is apparent from the array of the parties in so far as the fourth respondent is concerned. According to the writ petitioner the said institution is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasia and also the provisions of U.P. Universities Act, 1973 stands applicable.
Further pleadings reveal that the said institution is imparting education up to the Shastri, equivalent to the Post Graduate Degree and the appointment on the post of teachers is made pursuance of the provisions contained under the relevant statutes of the University in question. The writ petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Ved Shikshak (Lecturer) by the Manager of the Institution in question on 26.12.1978 and the same is stated to be approved by the University on 22.3.1979 and the writ petitioner further claims to have been confirmed by virtue of the order dated 27.12.1979.
In paragraph 9 of the writ petition the writ petitioner has further made averments that since the date of initiation appointment the writ petitioner is working in the post in question and he had been paid salary in that regard.
In paragraph 10 of the writ petition the writ petitioner further claims that he was appointed as a Lecturer in Ved and one Sri Bahori Lal Sharma, who was the Principal of institution in question retired on 30.6.2009 after attaining the age of superannuation and the petitioner claims to be appointed as an officiating/ad hoc Principal of the institution on 1.7.2009 pursuant to the resolution passed by the Committee of Management of the institution in question. It is further asserted that the Deputy Director, Sanskrit Pathshalaye, Meerut Region, Meerut in question on 29.7.2009 requested for approval of the officiation of the writ petitioner as a Principal of the Institution in question, in turn the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr, third respondent wrote a letter to the Registrar of the University on 17.8.2009 for attestation of the signature and it is further claimed that the signature of the writ petitioner has been attested.
It is further the case of the writ petitioner that on 21.8.2009 the Manager of the institution in question wrote a letter to the University with the further request that since the writ petitioner is working as an Officiating/Ad hoc Principal so his officiation be approved. As per the writ petitioner the approval of the officiation of the writ petitioner as a Principal stood approved by the University on 6.11.2009.
In para 14 it is further averred that w.e.f. 1.7.2009 the petitioner was permitted to function as an Ad hoc Principal of the institution. Further, on 16.11.2019 the Deputy Inspector, Sanskrit Pathshalaye, Meerut Region, Meerut wrote a letter to the D.I.O.S. Bulandshahr whereby direction was issued for payment of salary to the writ petitioner on the post of Principal w.e.f.1.7.2009.
As per the writ petitioner he had been discharging the duties as an Ad hoc Principal of the institution in question since 1.7.2009 to 30.6.2020 and he superannuated on 30.6.2020 after rendering 41 years six months and three days of continuous service that too based upon the satisfaction of the superiors. The writ petitioner further staked his claim for the purposes of payment of pension however the same was not granted to the petitioner so the writ petitioner represented the matter before the respondents.
In para 20 of the writ petition it is further asserted that the writ petitioner has been paid its all retiral dues being G.P.F., Leave Encashment however he has not been granted pension as more than three years have passed.
In para 21 of the writ petition assertions have been made while relying upon annexure-10 at page 78 of the paper book being the letter of the Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), First Region, Meerut dated 1.10.2020 addressed to the D.I.O.S. Bulandshahr seeking clarification and inputs on certain aspects to which the D.I.O.S. Bulandshahr corresponded with the Principal/Manager of the institution in question and while placing reliance upon annexure-12 at page 82 of the paper book reference whereof at page 24 it is being sought to be demonstrated that the writ petitioner also represented his cause putting before the authorities all the aspects of the matter.
In para 25 it is further asserted that till date neither any order has been passed either accepting or rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner regarding pension nor the writ petitioner has been communicated anything thus far. The writ petitioner further claims that correspondences were also made on 1.9.2022 and 2.11.2022. Reliance has been placed upon by the petitioner upon the judgement in the case of Dr. Brahmanand Shukla vs. State of U.P. in Writ-A (Service Bench) No.1590 of 2008 decided on 29.5.2019 seeking entitlement for the payment of pension and other benefits wherein reliance was placed upon the judgement in the case of Dr. Jai Prakash Narain Singh vs. State of U.P. (2014) 4 UPLBEC 2842 being a Full Bench decision of this Court also.
In para 28 of the writ petition it is further being asserted that the said judgement was subject matter of challenge in intra-court Appeal No. 15 of 2020 whcih came to be dismissed on 1.10.2020 by the Special Appellate Bench and further the said orders stood confirmed in Special Leave Petition (Diary) No.7766 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Brahmanand Shukla and others) on 5.11.2020. Reliance has also been placed upon another decision in the case of Dr. Kanhaiya Lal Jha vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No.16993 of 2011 decided on 17.2.2020 and also the judgement in the case of Satya Prakash Sharma vs. State of U.P. and 4 others, Writ-A No.2733 of 2022 decided on 23.5.2023.
While further relying upon annexure-18 at page 115 of the paper book the writ petitioner further claims to have represent his cause before the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) First Region, Meerut.
Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the second respondent, Deputy Director, of Education (Secondary) First Region, Meerut to accord payment of pension to the writ petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is legally entitled for the payment of pension as claimed by the writ petitioner needs determination at the first instance by the second respondent, Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) First Region, Meerut 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, with the self attested copy of the writ petition and on the receipt of the same the second respondent shall decide the claim of the writ petitioner within the time stipulated by this court. He further submits that he does not propose to file any response to the writ petition.
Considering the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel and the stand taken by it, the writ petition is being disposed off without seeking any response from the respondents in particular the fact that as per the writ petitioner the institution in question is manned by an Authorised Controller however before taking a decision to the second respondent shall put to notice the fourth respondent also and thereafter proceed to decide the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months bearing in mind the following fundamental and core issues:-(a) the issue regarding the entitlement of the writ petitioner for the payment of the pension post approval being accorded on the post of Lecturer as well as the officiaing/ad hoc Principal if any (b) the working of the writ petitioner as claimed by the writ petitioner in the institution in question after verifying the record (c) the applicability of the judgement in the case of Dr. Brahmanand Shukla (Supra), Satya Prakash Sharma (Supra) and Dr. Kanhaiya Lal Jha (Supra) etc. (d) any other incidental or ancillary issues related with the relevant statute in question.
Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case as the second respondent shall decide the matters strictly in accordance with law with the independent application of mind without being obsessed and influenced by any of the observations made herein above. In case the second respondent is of the opinion that the matter needs to be addressed by any other authority the writ petitioner shall be informed to the institution in writing (if the authorised controller is not manning the office in question) so as to enable them to submit their version in case inputs are required.
In case it is found that the writ petitioner was entitled for the monetary benefits and there has been no fault of his but to the contrary the delay and laxity was on the part of the respondents then not only the payment of the due amount be made but the second respondent shall quantify the interest component as per law. Further with regard to the non payment of interest in entirety or not commensurate to admissibility as per law it would be open for the petitioner to again approach the court.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 14.9.2023/piyush