Back
Madarsa Teacher Can't Be Denied For Not Opting To Retire At 60: Allahabad HC
The has firmly held that a madarsa teacher cannot be denied merely because she did not formally opt to retire at the age of 60 and instead continued in service until she turned 62. Justice Irshad Ali quashed the order of the Principal Secretary, , which had rejected the claim of Smt. Raisa Khan , a teacher who served over two decades.
A Teacher's Long Battle for
Smt. Raisa Khan was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at in Faizabad on . She retired on after uninterrupted service. Upon retirement, her —a she had earned—was not released despite repeated representations to the and higher authorities.
She first approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 7351 (S/S) of 2020, which was disposed of on with a direction to submit a comprehensive representation to the Principal Secretary. In compliance, she submitted her claim, but it was rejected through an order dated . The sole ground: she had not exercised the option to retire at 60 and had served till 62.
The State's Defense: Lack of Option
The respondents argued that teachers of Arabic/Persian Madarsas are governed by specific Government Orders of 1993, 2004, 2011, and 2018. They claimed the petitioner failed to submit the requisite option within the prescribed period and was therefore ineligible for . They further contended that she had been extended service benefits up to 62 years and all other admissible dues had been paid. The denial of , they insisted, was consistent with the applicable rules.
Court's Reasoning: Continued Service Cannot Be Used Against Employee
Justice Irshad Ali rejected this logic, observing that the respondents themselves had permitted the petitioner to continue in service beyond 60. “Thus, the circumstance which has been relied upon for denying is, in substance, the very circumstance which enabled the petitioner to render further service to the institution,” the court noted.
The judgment emphasized that is a distinct that cannot be denied without a . “Payment of other retiral or service dues cannot, by itself, amount to a valid determination that was not payable. constitutes a distinct and its denial must have a ,” the court held.
Precedents that Paved the Way
The court relied heavily on two key judicial pronouncements. In (decided on ), the quashed Government Orders dated and to the extent they denied to teachers who opted to continue for extended periods. That judgment directed payment of with interest at 6% per annum.
Additionally, the in (Civil Appeal No. 3639 of 2022) upheld entitlement to , describing it as a “.” The High Court found no reason to distinguish the petitioner’s case from those covered by these precedents.
Final Order: with 6% Interest
Allowing the writ petition, Justice Irshad Ali quashed the impugned order dated and directed the respondents to determine and release the payable to Smt. Raisa Khan within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. The court explicitly directed that the non-exercise of the option to retire at 60 shall not be treated as a ground for denial. The petitioner is also entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of her () until actual payment.
The judgment reinforces the principle that retiral benefits earned through long service cannot be withheld on technical grounds, especially when the employee was permitted to serve the extended period by the same authorities.
