IMPORTANT POINT
Vested rights cannot be retroactively revoked by legislative amendments unless explicitly stated, ensuring protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Vivek Shukla and Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State.

2. Notice to the opposite party no. 5 is hereby dispensed with.

3. Under challenge is the order dated 20th January 2024 passed by the opposite party no. 3, i.e., Deputy Director, Secondary Education, IXth Region, Ayodhya, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension has been rejected on the premises that by vide of Government order dated 12th December 2023, the pension scheme is amended with retrospective effect.

4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Institution in question, on the post of Assistant Teacher on ad-hoc basis on 13th March 1997 and in the event, the salary was not being paid to him, he filed a writ petition on 7th May 1999, wherein, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, on 16.11.1999, the financial concurrence was accorded with respect to the payment of salary by the DIOS concerned. He submits that the writ petition was disposed off on 17th August 2017 with final judgment and order, with a direction that the regularization of the service of the petitioner shall be considered by the competent authority and in compliance, thereof on 13th March 2019, the order was passed while regularising the services of the petitioner. He added that the petitioner retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31st March 2019, and thereafter, the petitioner prayed for the retiral dues, including the grant of pension, and admittedly, all the post-retiral dues are paid, except the payment of pension.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved a Writ Petition No. 3673 of 2023, whereby, praying that the opposite parties may be directed to make payment of pension, which was decided on 18th May 2023, and the respondent no. 3 was directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner with respect to payment of pension and thereafter, the Deputy Director Education passed the order, whereby, the claim of the petitioner with respect to grant of pension was rejected vide order dated 1st August 2022, on the premises that the Validation Act, 2021 is applicable in the case of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any pension. The petitioner again challenged the order dated 1st August 2022 by preferring a Writ Petition No. 9446 of 2023, wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order on 13th December 2023, which is extracted hereinunder:-

"1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.08.2023, whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of pension was rejected placing reliance on the judgment and order dated 28.01.2023 passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No.31 of 2023.

3. The sole contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the foundation for passing the impugned order being the judgment dated 28.01.2023 passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No.31 of 2023 has lost its substratum in view of the subsequent Civil Misc. Review Application No.33 of 2023, whereby the order dated 28.01.2023 was reviewed, vide order dated 21.07.2023 and ultimately the special appeal was dismissed.

4. It is argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the review application was not considered in the impugned order. On the face of it, the order impugned is based upon the judgment dated 28.01.2023 which itself was reviewed by means of subsequent order dated 21.07.2023, which has not been considered, as such, the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed.

5. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.3 to pass fresh orders. While doing so,