Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, J.
Indramani Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15439 of 2022
Decided on : 20-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi
For the Respondent: C.S.C. and Kushmondeya Shahi
IMPORTANT POINT
Post-retirement verification of qualifications is impermissible, and pension rights cannot be denied without statutory backing.
Headnote:
Verification - Teacher's Qualification - U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971; Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - The court held that post-retirement verification of qualifications is not permissible, especially based on third-party complaints, and pension rights cannot be denied without clear statutory provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired teacher, faced scrutiny over his B.Ed. degree after a third-party complaint, despite having served and received salary based on his qualifications for decades. He had been granted voluntary retirement and was entitled to pension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were no provisions allowing for the verification of qualifications of a retired employee or for disciplinary action against them, especially based on a third-party complaint.
Issues: Whether the authorities could verify the qualifications of a retired teacher and deny pension based on a third-party complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once an employee retires, their qualifications cannot be questioned, and pension rights are statutory entitlements that cannot be revoked without clear legal authority.
Result: The court quashed the orders questioning the petitioner's qualifications and directed the payment of his dues.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.-Heard Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by notice dated 13th September, 2022, issued by District Inspector of Schools questioning his B-Ed. degree furnished by him at the time of his initial appointment in the institution in the year 1978 as Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in junior high school.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher C.T. grade on 1st July, 1978. Later on, the institution was upgraded as high school in the year 1985 and on 30th March, 1983 by means of a Government Order, the institution was brought on grant-in-aid list. Since, the petitioner's name was there and the institution was brought on grant-in-aid upto junior high school, it was also brought on grant-in-aid list on 8th February, 1996 and the provisions of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, was made applicable, w.e.f., 1st April, 1996. Petitioner's name figured both at the level of junior high school and when the institution was brought on grant-in-aid as high schools and the petitioner continued to receive salary. Subsequently, since the institution had been recognized upto high school and was also brought on grant-in-aid and C.T. grade got declared a dying cadre under the Government Order issued in the year 1999, the petitioner, who continued to work as Assistant Teacher was automatically accorded with the status of Assistant Teacher L.T. grade. Petitioner seems to have also acquired B.Ed. degree of Shiksha Alankar from Rashtriya Patrachar Sanasthan, Kanpur in the year 1991. It is pleaded in the writ petition that since the Government Order was also issued for granting exemption from training to the teachers, who were untrained teachers, petitioner would also be entitled for exemption from training of B.Ed., in the event Shiksha Alankar degree were not be taken at par with the B.Ed. The petitioner's pay fixation had also been done by the District Inspector of Schools under order dated 10.10.2005 w.e.f. 19.2.1991 and the petitioner has been granted annual increments accordingly and further selection grade and pay fixation as per 7th pay commission recommendations. Since as per the date of birth recorded in the service book of the petitioner, he was to retire on 30.4.2022 but for his personal problems he made an application to the Manager for voluntary retirement from the institution on 30.10.2021, the Committee of Management adopted a resolution on 31.10.2021 accepting the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. In view of the provisions as contained under the Government Order dated 24.6.1983, the District Inspector of Schools Siddharth Nagar, approved the resolution of Committee of Management under his order dated 20th January, 2022 and petitioner stood retired voluntarily, w.e.f., 31st March, 2022. Upon his retirement petitioner has also been paid GPF, group insurance gratuity etc. Since he was also entitled to pension, so the papers were also forwarded by the Committee of Management for the said purpose, however, in the meanwhile it appears, on account of some village rivalry, one private person, namely, Brijesh Pratap Rao, who was envious of him made a complaint against the petitioner regarding his B.Ed. degree. Taking cognizance upon a third party complaint, the Deputy Director of Education vide letter dated 5.5.2022 and 3.9.2022, directed for verification of the B.Ed. degree of the petitioner and if found not correct then for lodging of F.I.R. against him and this is how a consequential order has come to be passed by District Inspector of Schools.
4. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has finally retired from service now at the time of his c
