Ram Raj Singh Parihar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

The petitioner before this Court was a lecturer in Government Intermediate College and after reaching the age of superannuation retired from service on 30.06.2007. Though he is being given pension by the State of Uttarakhand, but the services rendered by the petitioner as a teacher in a primary school in the State of U.P. between 1974 to 1991, i.e., prior to his joining the services on the post of Lecturer, have not been considered by the Department for pensionary benefits. The petitioner was relieved from the post of primary school teacher with effect from 30.08.1991, and on 1.09.1991 he joined the services of Lecturer, in a Govt. College is an admitted fact. Consequently there was no gap in the service.

The petitioner's case is that the period of service by him as primary school teacher was liable to be considered for pensionary benefits, and for this he has relied upon the Government Order dated 18.10.1997, passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it was provided that the services rendered by a Teacher in a non-governmental though grant-in-aid school were also liable to be considered for pensionary benefits. This Government Order has also been made applicable to such teachers who have rendered services in primary/upper primary school. This was so because in the erstwhile State of U.P., elementary education was not directly under the State Government, but was under the control of the U.P. Basic Education Board, and though salaries were given by the Government, but elementary school teachers were not considered Government employees. It is for this reason that vide Government Order dated 18.10.1997, a benefit was given to the Government servants of inclusion of their service rendered by them either in grant in aid school or in elementary school. Since the services rendered by the petitioner were not being considered for pensionary benefits, the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 182 of 2011, which was disposed of by learned Single Jude vide order dated 06.09.2017 with the following directions:-

"The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that his case is covered by Government order dated 18-10-1997. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner as per the Government order dated hereinabove within a period of eight weeks from today.

Pending application, if any stands disposed of accordingly."

After this, the matter has been considered by the Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar and he has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 10. 01.2018 on ground that he is not liable to be given the benefit of Government Order dated 18.10.1997 as such benefit is liable to be given to the teacher in non-governmental school. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

In my considered opinion, in the present case, the Chief Education Officer has totally lost sight of the relevant provisions of the Government Order dated 18. 10.1997, particularly clause (2) where such pensionary benefits have also been made applicable to the primary/upper primary school teachers, and for plausible reason inasmuch as when the government order was passed such teachers were under the Board, and not under the Government.

It is also necessary to mention at this juncture that after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand elementary education is not under a Board, but directly under the Government. It is an admitted fact that in the State of Uttarakhand, the services of the teachers who are primary school teachers have been included for pensionary benefits. Reference is made to the Government Order dated 24.6.2006 whereby all the employees including the teachers who were employees of Basic Siksha Parishad will be considered to be the employees of the State Government w.e.f. 22.4.2004. Since this Government Order has been produced today before this Court, the same is kept on the record as Annexure 'A'.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand, another objection raised by the State is that though the petitioner worked till 30.8.1991 and thereafter on 1.9.1991, he joined as Lecturer, but his resignation was accepted on 30.8.1993. To the contrary, petitioner has argued that there was no procedural lapse and the relieving certificate was issued to him by the concerned authority w.e.f. 31.8.1991 and acceptance of resignation on 30.8.1993 is a mere technicality which will not come in his way.

Contention of the petitioner seems to be correct that the acceptance of the resignation on 30. 8.1993 is a mere technical lapse and it shall not affect the rights of the petitioner.

The liability to give pension will also be on the State of Uttarakhand in terms of Section 54 read with the Eighth Schedule of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. Section 54 of the said Act reads as under:

"54. Pensions.-The liability of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh in respect of pensions shall pass to, or be apportioned between, the successor States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal in accordance with the provisions contained in the Eighth Schedule to this Act."

Clause 2 of the Eighth Schedule of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 reads as under:

"APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF PENSIONS

Subject to the adjustments mentioned in paragraph 3, each of the successor States shall, in respect of pensions granted before the appointed day by the existing State of Uttar Pradesh, pay the pensions drawn in its treasuries.

Subject to the said adjustments, the liability in respect of pensions of officers serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh who retire or proceed on leave preparatory to retirement before the appointed day, but whose claims for pensions are outstanding immediately before that day, shall be the liability of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

.....

....

...."

In view thereof, writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 10.1.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent authorities are directed to refix the pension of the petitioner taking into account the services of the petitioner rendered as a primary school teacher. It is made clear that the relevant period of service of the petitioner as primary school teacher, shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits only.