Court No. - 36

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3545 of 2022

Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Ram

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Neelabh Srivastava,Rajnikant Rai

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ras Bihari Pradhan

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

Heard Sri Neelabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1, Sri Ras Bihari Pradhan, learned

counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 and perused the record.

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been

filed for the following reliefs:-

"a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the

respondents to made the payment of salary of session benefits for the period of

01.07.2015 to 30.11.2015 forthwith to the petitioner along with 18% interest per

annum from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment is being made to

the petitioner. "

It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was

working as Assistant Teacher in Junior High School, Sonwal Rewatipur

Ghazipur run and managed by U.P. Basic Siksha Parishad and he has retired

from service w.e.f. 31.3.2016 after attaining the age of superannuation.

It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner

has not given the session benefit w.e.f. 1.7.2015 to 30.11.2015 and although he

was entitled for the said benefit of salary for the aforesaid period. It is next

contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner represented

the matter before respondent no.3, District Basic Education Officer, District-

Ghazipur vide representation dated 25.06.2021 which remain pending till date.

Lastly it is contended that the case of the petitioner is identical to the

controversy involved in Writ-A No.33360 of 2017 ( Angad Yadav and 7 others

vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 19.8.2017. The operative portion of

said judgment is reads as under:-

"Applying these principles on the facts of the present case, I find that the

petitioners in terms of the change of the academic session, when admittedly their

dates of superannuation fall during the academic session i.e. 01st April, 2015 to

31st March, 2016 as their dates of birth are 01.07.1953, 01.06.1953, 01.05.1953,

03.05.1953, 01.07.1953, 01.07.1953, 01.07.1953 and 15.05.1953 respectively,

they were entitled for the sessional benefit and to continue upto 31st March, 2016.

There was no fault on their part as they were not allowed to work after 30th June,

2015. A specific direction was issued not to allow them to continue beyond 30th

June, 2015. The said direction, as mentioned above, was manifestly erroneous

and contrary to the well settled practice and the relevant Rules to give the session

benefit to such teachers whose date of superannuation falls during the academic

session. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 08th

October, 2015 rectifying the said mistake, hence the Government Order dated

02nd May, 2017 that the teachers who were allowed to continue after the

judgment of Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra) and the Government Order dated

08th October, 2015, will not be paid salary from 30th June, 2015 till their

rejoining is arbitrary and unreasonable. When the Government itself had issued

an order dated 08th October, 2015, there was no justification to issue the

impugned order dated 02nd May, 2017, which is contrary to the law laid down by

this Court in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra). As noted above, the Division

Bench has declared the Government Order dated 15th June, 2015 illegal.

Regard may be had to the fact that on the basis of the said order, the petitioners

were denied sessional benefits. Once the said order was set aside, the petitioners

became entitled to continue. The respondents have also allowed the petitioners to

rejoin their position.

Therefore, in the said background and on a care