A P PALIWAL Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference arises out of a doubt expressed by a Division Bench about the correctness of the judgements noted therein on the proposition relating to addition of services as a Teacher in a Government School in Madhya Pradesh towards the services of a Lecturer in an aided Degree College in the State of U.P. for computing pension and other post retiral benefits. The decisions, including those mentioned in the referring order, that are subject matter of resolution through an authoritative pronouncement, are :

(2.) THE controversy appears to have arisen in the background that the petitioner Dr. A.P. Paliwal initially served as an Upper Grade Teacher in a Government Higher Secondary School, Hoshangabad, State of Madhya Pradesh from 1.7.1963 onwards. He came to be appointed as a lecturer on 1st September, 1973 in Dharam Samaj Post Graduate College Aligarh affiliated to the Agra University in the State of Uttar Pradesh and attained his age of superannuation working as such on 24.1.1998. The petitioner claimed that his services between 1.7.1963 to 31.8.1973 as a Teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School in the State of Madhya Pradesh should be added for the purpose of his length of services while computing his pension and other post retiral benefits. The petition as framed, prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10th January, 2005 passed by the Finance Controller Higher Education Directorate intimating the Principal of the Institution that the petitioner's pensionary benefits have been calculated on the basis of his services rendered within the State of U.P. and in the absence of any Government Order to the contrary or even otherwise, the services rendered by the petitioner outside the State of U.P. in Madhya Pradesh cannot be added for such computation. THE allegations in the writ petition recite the instances of the decisions of this Court to contend that the claim of the petitioner has been discriminated and much stress has been laid on the judgments of Dr. (Mrs.) Kavita Srivastava (supra), the decision in the case of Hari Om Agrawal (supra), and the decision of the Apex Court as relied upon in these two decisions namely Shardendu Bhushan v. Nagpur University, Nagpur and others, 1987 (Suppl.) SCC 53. Reliance is also placed on the Government Orders dated 29/8/1990, 30/6/1992, 19.2.1996, 5.2.2003 and the Government Orders dated 23/7/1973, 13/6/1979, 10/12/1985, 14/10/1999 and 4/1/2001.

(3.) HE further submits that apart from the decisions which have been relied upon and noted hereinabove, the Government Order dated 30th June, 1992, the Government Order dated 19th February 1996, and the Government Orders issued in the case of Sri Amar Pal Singh dated 29.8.1990 and in the case of Dr. Shanker Sahai Srivastava dated 5th February 2003, clearly make out a case reflecting discrimination being practised by the State Government which militates irrationally against the petitioner. He submits that if such similar benefits have been extended in specific matters of computation of length of service for award of pension, then it is not open to the State Government to say that they were isolated instances and cannot be treated as precedents. He submits that in view of the provisions of Section 33 of the State Universities Act 1973 read with word "Government" as defined in Section 3(23) of General Clauses Act 1897, the respondent State is bound to add the services of the petitioner rendered in the State of Madhya Pradesh for calculating his qualifying years of service in order to compute the pensionary benefits to which the petitioner is entitled. He submits that the State Government cannot adopt a pick and choose policy and award the said benefit to one and discriminate the petitioner on the other hand.