Umesh Chandra vs State of U.P.and Others

Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

The relief sought for in the present petition is to issue mandamus commanding the respondents no.3 and 4 to calculate the pension of the petitioner taking into account the sixty six half yearly periods of service of the petitioner treating the same as pensionable service for culculation of pension and arrears and to permit the petitioner to deposit the amount of management''s contribution with interest.

Brief facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer in physics in Janta Vidhyalaya Inter College, Purepandey, Rae Bareli. From there he was transferred in accordance with rules to K.V.M. Inter College, Kamla Nagar, Allahabad w.e.f. 18.8.1982 and joined on the same day as Lecturer in physics. He discharged his duties without any complaint and retired on 30.6.2007. Earlier the C.P.F. Scheme was applicable upto March, 1978, which was deposited with the post office Sareni, Rae Bareli. Thereafter, Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was converted into General Provident Fund Scheme in which the option was to be given by the teachers to opt the pensionary benefit. If teachers opted pensionary scheme then they were required to return the management''s contribution in the Government Treasury. Subsequently, the State Government issued a G.O. dated 26.7.2001 to extend the period for deposit of management''s contribution alongwith interest in the Government Treasury upto 30.3.2002. On such deposits the period of service rendered in the institution prior to its bringing on grantinaid would be counted for pensionary benefit.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid amount could not be deposited as the petitioner was not aware and informed regarding the details of management''s contribution. However, he gave representation and even he was ready to deposit the aforesaid amount. The representation dated 17.1.2008 is still pending. However, neither he has been permitted to deposit the amount nor the representation has been decided.

The respondent has informed that the retiral benefit including the General Provident Fund (G.P.F.) has already been given to the petitioner, which is admitted by the petitioner and petitioner is also getting pension. However, since there was no detail and deposit of the management''s contribution hence that period was not counted.

Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. From 1.4.2009 a new pension scheme has been introduced. According to Government Order dated 8.4.2009 the scheme would be applicable to only those institutions, which have been brought in grantinaid after 1.4.2005. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the institution of the petitioner was getting grantinaid prior to 2005. In Writ Petition No.75746 of 2006, Smt. Shanti Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and others, the cut of date provided in the Government Order dated 26.7.2001 has already been quashed and petitioner was allowed to deposit the amount subsequently. The said decision has been followed in several cases including Writ Petition No.62458 of 2011, Sewa Ram Pathak Abhay and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided and allowed on 13.12.2011. In view of the facts and circumstances, he was and is ready to pay Manager''s contribution with interest. In the interest of justice, the petitioner is entitled to be permitted to deposit the management''s contribution as his representation was already pending for pensionary benefit. If the petitioner deposits the management''s contribution with interest within a period of six weeks from today the respondents shall consider and extent the benefit of G.O. dated 26.7.2001 to the petitioner, after considering the representation and after completing the formalities, expeditiously, preferably, within three months after deposit of the amount and filing of certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, present petition is hereby allowed. No order as to cost.