LALLAN PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-fix his pension in view of grant of selection grade etc. in the light of the order dated 20.4.2004 passed by Deputy Directory of Education, Madhyamik, Azamgarh Mandal, Azamgarh (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and to pay pensionary benefits accordingly.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to have been appointed as Lecturer (English) in Ratsad Inter College, Ballia on 28.10.1955. He remained absent from 1.7.1966 to 20.9.1973. THEreafter he joined as Lecturer in P.N. Inter College, Chhapra Dubey, Ballia on 21.9.1973 and retired therefrom on 30.6.1984. It is said that both the institutions where the petitioner worked were recognised Colleges governed by U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as '1921 Act') and were receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. It is also apparent from the record that his service as Lecturer were recognised as permanent with effect from 21.9.1973 by District Inspector of schools, Ballia (hereinafter referred to as 'DIOS, Ballia') vide order dated 8.7.1983 (a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition). It is not his case that the aforesaid order was ever challenged by him before any appropriate forum till the date of his retirement or even thereafter within a reasonable time. He claims to have made several representations before the authorities concerned for giving due credit to his earlier service for the purpose of pension and thereafter filed writ petition No. 7964 of 2002 seeking following reliefs:

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 sworn by Yogendra Kumar Singh, the then DIOS, Ballia on 14.10.2008. It is admitted that petitioner's claim for giving due credit for the period of 1.7.1967 to 30.6.1973 for pensionary benefits was allowed by respondent No. 2, i.e., Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh and responsibility lay upon the Treasury authorities to give effect the aforesaid order. Since treasury officer is not a party to the writ petition, hence reply on his behalf is not possible.