The court emphasized procedural fairness and the necessity to consider prior government orders regarding pension eligibility, ruling that the denial of pension was unjustified based on the petitioner's husband's service record.

1. Petitioner has claimed that her husband was initially appointed on 01.10.1957 as untrained Teacher in a Primary School, Karmalipur Garhi, Baghpat, Meerut. She further claimed that her husband obtained training from 19.05.1960 to 30.05.1960 from a training camp based at Sarurpur Kalan. She further claimed that her husband was thereafter appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher on 19.11.1963 at a Primary School, Karmalipur Garhi, Baghpat, Meerut where he worked up to 30.06.1991 i.e. till his retirement.

2. Petitioner has further claimed that her husband worked for about 34 years from his initial appointment i.e. 01.10.1957 till his retirement i.e. 30.06.1991. It is further case of petitioner that despite her husband worked for such long time, he was denied pension and for that he has submitted various representations.

3. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner’s husband has filed a Writ A No. 20312/1999, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.05.1999, that B.S.A., Meerut will decide claim of petitioner regarding retiral benefits in accordance with law.

4. In pursuance of above order, claim of petitioner’s husband was considered, however, by an order dated 25.01.2000, it was rejected on a ground that in terms of a Government Order dated 30.05.1973 petitioner’s husband could not be exempted from training since before cut off date i.e. 25.07.1973, he was required to complete service of 15 years, but he has completed service of only 9 years 8 months and 6 days. Date of appointment of petitioner was taken on19.11.1963 when he was appointed as untrained teacher.

5. Aforesaid order was thereafter challenged at behest of petitioner’s husband by way of filing Writ A No. 30422/2000 which was allowed vide order dated 04.01.2008 and relevant part thereof is quoted below :-

“In view of the above chronology of events, it is clear that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing to put forth his case before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The circular dated 4.12.82 (sub para 1) clearly provides that if an untrained teacher has completed 10 years service on 30.06.78, he was entitled for all the benefits as spelt out in the relevant Government Orders and circulars Moreover, even if the petitioner’s services are counted with effect from 01.10.1957 he had completed 15 years service much before 25.07.73. Thus, it appears that material facts have been excluded from consideration and re-hearing and re-appraisal or material on record is required in the interest of justice In view of the above, the writ is allowed and the order dated 25.01.2000 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikar, Meerut is quashed. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Meerut is directed to call for the record, fix a date of hearing for taking into account the version of the petitioner. It shall be open for the petitioner to place all the relevant Government Orders and circulars to support his case. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari after appreciating the material on record and taking into account the version of the petitioner shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of judgment and order. This court is issuing such direction as the petitioner is a poor school teacher aged about 76 years of age and as such early disposal of the dispute is necessary.”

6. In aforesaid order, there is a reference of a Circular dated04.12.1982 and for reference, said Circular is