KRISHNA PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred seeking the following primary relief:

(2.) Briefly stated the dispute arises in the following backdrop. All the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the Primary Sections of the Educational Institutions represented by their respective Committees of Management. The Primary Sections of these colleges came on to the grant-in-aid list issued by the State Government on 6.9.1989. As is evident from the said list and the orders of the Government, the effective date for these colleges and their Primary Sections coming on to the grant-in-aid list was 1.10.1989. All the petitioners herein were in fact, working in these Institutions much prior to that starting from 1964-72. It would be apposite to notice here that while the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have attained the age of superannuation and retired in 2006-07-08, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 retired on different dates between 2006-2013, the petitioner No. 4 retired from service on 30.06.2014 while remaining petitioners are to retire in 2015 and 2016. These facts which are stated by the petitioners in Paragraphs 8, 10 and 11 of the writ petition are not disputed by the contesting State-respondents. The grievance of all these petitioners is the non-payment of pension under the provisions of the U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employees' Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964. These Rules admittedly came into force on 1.10.1964 and in terms thereof the employees were entitled to be provided pension computed on the basis of the total length of service put in by them. The dispute itself arises pursuant to a Government Order dated 20th January, 2004 and the stand of the State that the benefit under the Rules aforementioned would be permissible to be sanctioned and paid to these teachers only from the date of promulgation of the said Government Order. Resultantly, the total length of qualifying service which forms the basis for computation and grant of family pension becomes effected and it is in view of the same that the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) Sri Siddharatha Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners were in service in the Primary Section of the Institutions in question much prior to the date of promulgation of the Government Order. He submitted that the Primary Section being taken on to the grant-in-aid list w.e.f. 1.10.1989 clearly made the petitioners eligible to obtain benefits falling under the Rules 1964. He submitted that the benefit of the statutory Rule could not be negated or curtailed in any manner by the Government Order dated 20th January, 2004. Elaborating his submissions Shri Khare has further relied upon the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 17819 of 2007; Mangali Prasad Varma Vs. State of U.P. and Others. Considering a similar issue the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the benefit of past service rendered by the petitioners could not be curtailed by the Government Order dated 20th January, 2004. It was held that the so called cut off date could not be kept as 20th January, 2004 inasmuch as pension was not being granted by virtue of the Government Order but that the same was a right which flowed from the provisions of the Rules 1964.