IMPORTANT POINT
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 regulations at the time of retirement.

JUDGMENT :

SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Singh and Ms. Arunima Shukla, learned Counsels for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Since, the pure legal question is involved, hence the matter is decided at admission stage.

3. Under challenge is the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), 9th Region, Ayodhya whereby the matter for grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner is remitted back.

4. The contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on ad-hoc basis on 09.08.1995 and he joined thereafter on 14.08.1995 and later on, when the financial concurrence was not granted by the District Inspector of Schools, a writ petition bearing no. 839 (S/S) of 1997 was preferred before this Court, whereby, he was granted salary by an interim order. He further submitted that once the provision under Section 33G of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 was promulgated, the petitioner was considered and his services were regularized vide order dated 08.06.2017 and thereafter, he was also granted the other benefits. He also added that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation after completing 62 years of age on 30.04.2023.

5. Further contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that once the matter was preferred before the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), 9th Region, Ayodhya for payment of pension, the same was relegated back, while observing that since the Government Order dated 12.12.2023 came into effect which says that the qualifying service for grant of pension shall be counted from the date of substantive appointment, thus, the petitioner is not entitled for pension. Adding his argument, he submits that in fact, the petitioner could be treated retired while attaining the age of superannuation while completing 62 years of age on 30.04.2023 as provided under Regulation 21 of the Regulations made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1921'), and therefore, the date of retirement is much prior than the date of issuance of the Government order, hence, the Government order dated 12.12.2023 will not apply so far as the case of the present petitioner is concerned.

6. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on judgment & order dated 25.04.2024 passed in Writ A 2202 of 2024 and has referred Paragraph 19 to 21 which are quoted herein-below:

“.......(19) It is undisputed fact that the services of the petitioner was regularised on 30th March 2019 that is much prior than the Government order dated 12th December 2023, is issued, when the Clause 4 of the Pension Rules was not in existence.

(20) The legal principal culled out is that the vested rights cannot be taken away by way of amendment giving the effect retrospectively. Further, if any statute do not provide any specific terms regarding the provision to be applicable retrospectively, the same shall be applicable prospectively.

(21) It has been the view of the Apex Court consistently, including the judgment and order rendered in Chairman Railway Board vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, AIR SC 1997 (0) 3828 (Constitutional Bench) and in case of Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd versus Registrar, Cooperative Societies reported in AIR (SC) 2022 0 1349 that it would have unjust and unreasonable to give any effect to any statute retrospectively unless any claim or right is vested by way of legislation. Further, recently in case of Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayan & Ors. Vs. Estgappan Cherian & Anr. 2021 (10) SCC 210, it has been held that there is a profusion of judicial authority and the proposition that a rule of law cannot be constituted as retrospective unless it expresses a clear or manifest intention to the contrary.”

7. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the controversy has