The main legal point established in the judgment is that teachers at State-aided educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh are governed by the Applicable Rules and not the Government Employees Rules. The court emphasized that the petitioners' rights to pension were not altered by the Qualifying Service Act, as the Act was intended for government servants and did not apply to teachers at State-aided educational institutions.

JUDGMENT :

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

1. Largely, the issue involved in this batch of writ petitions is one. Accordingly, with the consent of parties, all writ petitions have been heard together. All counsel were heard on the facts narrated in the lead case - Writ Appeal No. 12070 of 2022 (Nand Lal vs. State of U.P. and Others).

2. Heard Sri Adarsh Singh, Sri Sankalp Narain, Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri R.K. Singh Kaosik, Sri Y.K. Srivastava, Sri Pragyanshu Pandey, Sri Deo Prakash, Sri Mahendra Singh, Sri Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, Sri Anil Yadav, Sri Seemant Singh and Sri Rajesh Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General along with Shri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. Material facts involved in Writ Appeal No. 12070 of 2022 are described below.

4. In the year 1994, two vacancies arose on the post of ad hoc teachers at the institution, Adarsh Inter College Maharajganj - one occasioned by the death (in harness) and the other upon promotion. Vide its first resolution dated 1.5.1994, the Committee of Management of that institution resolved to fill up those posts. It was backed by a second resolution dated 15.1.1994 constituting a Selection Committee. In compliance thereof, the petitioner along with one Ram Shankar Rai were appointed Assistant Teachers, on 19.6.1994. The Committee of Management of the said institution then sought financial approval from the District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj. It was granted on 22.10.1994. It is also not in dispute; the present petitioner continued to function and discharge his duties as Assistant Teacher at the abovedescribed institution. Upon amendment made to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) being U.P. Act No. 7 of 2016, section 33G was introduced in the Act. It was enforced with effect from 22.03.2016. In compliance thereof, a Divisional Level Committee was constituted. Vide its Resolution dated 22.8.2016, the said Committee resolved to regularize the petitioner Nand Lal with effect from 22.03.2016 i.e. by operation of law, arising from the enforcement of Section 33G of the Act, from that date. It is also not in dispute, the petitioner continued to work till 31.02.2021 when he attained the age of superannuation. All salary dues have been computed and paid out to the petitioner, accordingly.

5. The dispute that arises is - upon his retirement, the petitioner claims payment of retiral dues including (the bone of contention), pension. That claim has been declined. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.6.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, rejecting his claim for payment of pension.

6. Similar fact situation obtains in the other cases. In some cases, despite a positive direction earlier issued by this Court - to grant the benefit of retiral dues in terms of still earlier decision of this Court in Sunita Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Others, Writ Appeal No. 25431 of 2018 decided on 20.12.2018, presently, by further order passed by respondent authorities, that claim has been declined. In still others, no orders have been passed. Thus, the petitioners claim a positive mandamus upon the respondents to pay up the retiral dues, including pension.

7. In Writ Appeal No. 14333 of 2022, the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner Shambhu Nath Prasad being Writ Appeal No. 5951 of 2022 (Shambhu Nath Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Others) was disposed of by order dated 11.4.2022 in terms of another order dated 17.9.2021 in Ali Hussain vs. State of U.P. and Others, Writ Appeal No. 8214 of 2020, decided on 17.9.2021.

8. In such facts, Shri Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order of this Court in Sunita Sharma (supra). Upon due consideration of the prov