Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Shaukat Ali Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
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 Go
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
