Allahabad High Court directs Education department to decide on regularisation of service, fixation of pension of retired teacher

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Joint Director of Education (Secondary) Varanasi Region, Varanasi, to take a decision within three months on the representation of the retired teacher for regularization of service and fixation of pension under Section 33-G of the 1982 Act.

A Single Bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Jai Prakash Pandey.

The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent institution, namely Baba Kina Ram Inter College, Ramgarh, Chandauli is a recognized intermediate college under the provisions of U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 stands applicable.

It is further the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on the ad hoc basis Assistant Teacher LT Grade pursuant to the vacancy, which had fallen vacant on account of superannuation of Sri Chitharu Ram on 01.10.1992 and he was accorded joining on 22.10.1992.

It is further the case of the petitioner that though documents were transmitted by the fourth respondent to second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Chandauli for according financial approval, but when nothing was done and the payment of salary was also not made, the petitioner herein instituted Original Suit along with the fourth respondent, Committee of Management before the Civil Judge, Varanasi.

In the said case, an injunction order was passed on 30.10.1993, whereby a direction was issued for payment of salary to the petitioner.

It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was paid salary w.e.f 1993. However, in the meantime, U.P Act No 5 of 1992 was amended and with the insertion of Section 33-G the petitioner claims to be covered under the said provision, as according to him, any teacher other than the Principal or the Headmaster, who was accorded promotion or direct recruitment on or after 07.08.1993, but not later than 25.01.1999, is to be considered for regularization, subject to suitability, eligibility and other ancillary aspects.

The claim of the petitioner is that though the papers were transmitted way back on 14.10.2016 before the second respondent, but till date, nothing has been done and the petitioner has retired on 31.03.2022, and only G.P.F has been paid, but the pension has not been paid.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the various judgments of the Court on the said subject, the petitioner is entitled to not only payment of pension, but also to be accorded regularization that would be a posthumous regularization after retirement.

Prayer in the petition is for a direction to the third respondent, Joint Director of Education (Secondary) Varanasi Region, Varanasi to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner for regularization under Section 33-G of the 1982 Act.

Gaya Prasad Singh, Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner for being accorded regularization in terms of Section 33-G of the 1982 Act seeks determination at the first instance by the third respondent looking into the facts as to whether the case of the petitioner stands covered under the said provision or not and, particularly, about the fate of the civil proceedings initiated by the Committee of Management along with the petitioner.

Gaya Prasad Singh, Standing Counsel further submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served in detaining the petition on board and they do not propose to file any response to the petition. However, the petitioner may represent his cause before the third respondent while filing a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the petition and the third respondent shall advertise the core issues and thereafter, decide the entitlement of the writ petitioner after putting to notice the fourth respondent.

To the said submission, counsel for the petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same.

Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the Court disposed of the petition without seeking any response from the respondents, granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the third respondent while filing a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition, who on receipt of the same, shall put to notice the fourth respondent in writing in advance and thereafter proceed to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, advertising to the core issues regarding eligibility, suitability and applicability of the provisions contained under Section 33-G of the 1982 Act as well as the import and impact of the pending civil suit as instituted by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.