Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.
Shaukat Ali Khan – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 75589 of 2010
Decided On : 04-07-2024
PENSION - FAMILY PENSION CLAIM - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Uttar Pradesh Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, Regulation 19 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, particularly Regulation 19, which outlines the conditions under which service qualifies for pension. The court emphasized that continuous temporary service without interruption can count as qualifying service for pension, and that the absence of Provident Fund contributions does not negate the right to pension. This interpretation led to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to pension based on his long service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim for family pension by the Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh. He was appointed as a demonstrator in 1973 and worked continuously until retirement, despite the State's claim that his appointment was not regularized and no Provident Fund contributions were made.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been appointed to a sanctioned post and had rendered continuous service for 35 years. It ruled that his service qualified for pension under Regulation 19(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, despite the lack of Provident Fund contributions.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to pension despite his appointment being temporary and the absence of Provident Fund contributions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that continuous temporary service can qualify for pension, and the lack of Provident Fund contributions does not affect the right to claim pension. The court relied on precedents that recognized the entitlement to pension based on long service.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order rejecting the pension claim was quashed, and the Regional Deputy Director of Education was directed to pay the retiral dues within two months.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.
1. Heard Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, the learned Standing Counsel.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary Education), Uttar Pradesh, whereby while deciding a representation submitted by Smt. Nafees Jahan, widow of late Nawab Khan, a deceased employee, the petitioner’s claim for payment of family pension has also been rejected.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a demonstrator in the Chemistry Department in Gandhi Faiz-E-Aam College, Shahjahanpur, on a temporary basis, till 30.06.1974. Two other persons namely Nawab Khan and Bhagwan Singh were also appointed in a similar manner along with the petitioner and all of them continued to work without any interruption till they attained the age of superannuation. The Director of Education had raised some objection regarding payment of salary to the three demonstrators (including the petitioner), upon which the State Government had issued a direction that salary of the three demonstrators could not be paid from the maintenance grant. The management of the institution submitted a representation for payment of their salaries. The petitioner claims that on 06.03.1968, a Government Order had been issued whereby three posts of demonstrators had been sanctioned in Gandhi Faiz-E-Aam College, Shahjahanpur and he had been appointed against a sanctioned post of demonstrator and, accordingly, the salary was paid to him from the maintenance grant. The petitioner and two other similarly situated demonstrators Sri Nawab Khan and Bhagwan Singh had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10455 of 1978 claiming payment of salary. An interim order dated 25.01.1979 was passed in the aforesaid writ petition whereby respondents were directed to pay salary to the petitioner in the revised scale of pay prescribed for demonstrator for intermediate classes.
4. On 29.01.1979, Principal of the Gandhi Faiz-E-Aam College, Shahjahanpur had passed an order transferring the petitioner and the other two demonstrators to work as demonstrators in intermediate classes at Islamia Inter College, Shahjahanpur. The aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10455 of 1978 was disposed of by means of an order dated 25.05.2006 directing the Director of Education (Higher Education) to examine the matter after getting a report from the concerned District Inspector of Schools and to take a final decision in respect of the petitioner’s claim. As one of the petitioners Nawab Khan had died during pendency of Writ Petition No. 10455 of 1978, it was provided that the question of his retiral benefits shall be decided.
5. The Director of Education (Higher Education) passed an order dated 04.06.2007 in which it was recommended that keeping in view the long tenure of service rendered by the petitioner and other demonstrators, the Director of Education (Secondary Education) should take an appropriate decision for payment of retiral dues to them. The Director of Education (Secondary Education) thereafter passed the impugned order dated 07.10.2010 holding that the appointment of the petitioner and other demonstrators had not been made in accordance with due process of law and due to want of approval by the competent authority, no deduction was made from their salary towards contribution of General Provident Fund, after their services were transferred to Islamia Inter College. The petitioner’s claim for payment of retiral dues was rejected for the aforesaid reason.
6. The State has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner was not appointed on a regular basis and, therefore, no amount was deducted towards Provident Fund/General Provident Fund and the Director of Education (Secondary Education) had rightly deni
Continuous temporary service without interruption qualifies for pension under the Uttar Pradesh Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, regardless of Provident Fund contributions.
An officiating principal with requisite qualifications and long service is entitled to pension benefits, regardless of the nature of their appointment.
Vested rights cannot be retroactively revoked by legislative amendments unless explicitly stated, ensuring protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The court ruled that the entire service of the petitioner from 1979 to 2015 must be considered for pension calculation, subject to the deposit of management contributions, as earlier cut-off dates we....
Pension eligibility is not contingent upon G.P.F. deductions; a retiree cannot be penalized for non-deduction due to administrative faults.
Past temporary services of employees must be considered for pension calculation under the Bihar Pension Rules, ensuring fair treatment and preventing undue hardship.
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.....
Vested rights to pension cannot be revoked by subsequent amendments or government orders unless explicitly stated to have retrospective effect; the age of superannuation is determined by existing reg....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
