Allahabad High Court
Bholi Prasad Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 27 January, 2010
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
1 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2907 of 2010 Petitioner :- Bholi Prasad Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Petitioner Counsel :- Nisheeth Yadav, C.B. Yadav Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1- Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2- The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Secondary Education, UP Shashan, Lucknow, rejecting the representation of the petitioner claimingh extension/re- representation on conferment of award of 'State Teachers Award-2002', pursuant to the GO dated 23.10.1991, a copy whereof is annexure - 3 to the writ petition. 3- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's date of birth is 1.1.1943; therefore, he has attained superannuation on 31st December, 2002, but he continued to teach till June 30, 2003 availing session benefit. On 22.10.2003 the State Government declared 'State Teachers Award-2002' which also included the petitioner's name and, therefore, in view of the GO dated 23.10.1991, he was entitled to the benefit of extension of service of re-employment, which was denied by the respondents.
4- Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the respondents by making a representation which was not decided. thereafter, he filed Writ Petition No. 32124 of 2005, which was disposed of on 25th April, 2005, directing the authorities concerned to decide the representation. Pursuant thereto, petitioner's representation was decided and rejected vide State Government's order dated 8.9.2005, whereafter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1580 of 2006, which was allowed on 3.3.2009, with the following direction:
"For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 8.9.2005 passed by the respondent no. 1 is hereby quashed.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent no. 1 shall take fresh decision in the 2 matter strictly in accordance with the Government Order dated 23.10.1991 and the observations made hereinabove, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him and communicate his decision to the petitioner."
5- Pursuant thereto, the matter has been reconsidered by the respondents and by means of the impugned order the claim of the petitioner for extension or re-employment has been rejected.
6- Sri Nisheet Yadav vehementally contended that the Government Order does not talk of only extension in service but also re-employment, meaning thereby even if the petitioner had already retired, he must get re-employment. He submits that the claim of the petitioner has been denied in an arbitrary and illegal manner.
7- Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, however, I find no substance in his submissions. 8- The first GO giving benefit to such teachers who have been given national or state level awards was issued on 6th May, 1982, a copy whereof is annexures-2 to the writ petition. A perusal thereof shows that the State Government directed that such teachers who have been awarded national or state level and are physically and mentally absolutely fit, should be given two years' extension after their retirements. 9- By GO no. 3116/15 (14-84-5 (19)/84 dated 2nd August, 1984, it was provided that such teachers who had participated in 1942 Freedom Struggle movement, sent to jail and are also getting freedom fighter pension, if physically and mentally fit, shall also be given one year's extension of service. By GO no. 112/1984-Karmik-2 dated 14th August, 1984, it was clarified that the benefit of GO dated 2nd August, 1984 shall be made available to all such teachers who have attained the age of superannuation on 31st July, 1984 relieved. They shall be called and given extension in the light of the GO dated 2nd August, 1984. The period of absence, if any, would be treated as due leave. 10- By GO no. 3346/15-(14)-5 (67)/85 dated 16th December, 1986, the benefit of GO dated 2nd August, 1984, was extended to the teaching staff of the schools of local bodies. Vide GO No. 1278/15(14)/88/5(19)/84 dated 10.5.1988 the benefit provided to the teachers who had participated in 1942 Freedom Struggle by GO dated 3 2.8.1984 was extended to 2 years instead of one year but the manner of giving the said benefit was different. For one year they are to be provided extension and another one year re-employment. This decision was in the context of the earlier GO dated 9.3.1988. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 2 and 3 of the GO dated 10th May, 1988, which are as under:
**2- bl fo"k; ij lE;d~:i ls fopkjksijkUr 'kklu us vc ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd mDr 'kklukns'kksa esa nh x;h O;oLFkk ;Fkkor~ cuh jgsxhA bl O;oLFkk ds vfrfjDr dkfeZd foHkkx ds 'kklukns'k la[;k& 1@2@1984 dkfeZd&2 fnukad 9 ekpZ] 1988 esa mfYyf[kr fuEufyf[kr O;oLFkk Hkfo"; esa ykxw gksxh& ¼d½ ftu lsukuh v/;kidksa dks mDr ,d o"kZ ds lsok foLrkj dh lqfo/kk iznku dh xbZ gS] vkSj os lsok foLrkj ij py jgs gS mudh lsok dh vof/k lekIr gksus ij] vkxs ,d o"kZ ds fy, vkSj iqufuZ;qfDr Lohdkj dh tk;sxhA v/;k; 1 À f'k{kdksa rFkk f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr] izksUufr] fofu;ferhdj.k vkfn ¼[k½ bu vkns'kksa ds tkjh gksus dh frfFk ds ckn lkekU; vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ djus ij lsokfuo`Rr gksus okys ,sls v/;kidksa dks iwoZ esa tkjh vkns'kksa ds vuqlkj ,d o"kZ dk lsok foLrkj fn;k tk;sxk vkSj mlds i'pkr~ ,d vfrfjDr o"kZ ds fy, iqufu;qfDr Lohdkj dh tk;sxhA ¼x½ ,sls ekeyksa esa] ftuesa lsukuh v/;kid ,d o"kZ dk lsok foLrkj dk ykHk izkIr dj lsokfuo`Rr gks pqds gSa] rFkk lsokfuo`fRr ds i'pkr` vxzsrj ,d o"kZ dh vof/k Hkh chr pqdh gks] buds ekeys iqujksn~?kkfVr ugha fd;s tk;sxsa fdUrq ,sls ekeyksa esa] ftuesa ,sls lsukuh v/;kidksa dks ,d o"kZ ds lsok foLrkj ds i'pkr~ lsokfuo~Rr gq, rFkk vHkh ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ugha xqtjh gS] 'kklu vo'ks"k ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, mudh iqufuZ;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa fopkj dj ldrk gSA 3- bl lEcU/k esa ;g Hkh Li"V djuk gS fd bu vkns'kksa ds vUrxZr ,d vfrfjDr o"kZ ds fy, iqufuZ;qfDr iznku djus gsrq ogha 'krsZa ykxw gksaxh] tks 'kklukns'k la[;k&3116@15&14@84@5 ¼19½@84] fnukad 2 vxLr] 1984 esa fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSaA** 11- Thus the State Government had provided benefit of two years' extension of service for those teachers who have achieved national or state level awards but those who have 4 participated in 1942 Freedom movement, they are allowed benefit of 2 years in different manner, i.e. one year's extension and one year's re-employment. The GO dated 23rd August, 1991, relied on by the petitioner does not make any difference to the situation what it contained in the earlier Gos and therefore when it refers to re-employment of the teachers, it is in reference to those teachers who had participated in 1942 Freedom movement. Only they were allowed one year's extension and another one year by way of re-employment. The re-employment benefit is not attracted in the case of teachers who held national or state level awards for the reason that they are entitled directly for 2 year's extension of service which is more beneficial than the latter one.
12- The stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the condition with respect to re-employment is also attracted in the case of teachers holding national or state level awards is not correct and contrary to the Gos. In fact, no such GO was placed before this Court which provides that the teachers holding national or state level awards can be allowed two year's extension of service or two year's re- employment.
13- As discussed above, re-employment in view of the GO dated 9th March, 1988 and 10th May, 1988, is attracted in the case of those who have participated in 1942 Freedom movement and not to others.
14- In the circumstances, I find no error in the decision taken by the State Government holding that since the petitioner has retired long back and he was awarded state level award subsequently, he cannot get the benefit of the GO provides only for extension and applies to those incumbents who were/ are in service.
15- The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Dated :- 27.1.2010 sks-grade iv