GIRIJA DAYAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Prabhat Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5.

(2.) Under challenge is the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the Finance Controller, Secondary Education, Allahabad i.e. respondent no.3 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension has been rejected. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Lucknow i.e. respondent no.2 to proceed in pursuance to the letter dated 13.10.2014 of the Committee of Management, Sitapur and for paying of regular pension to the petitioner of a Class IV post.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been appointed on a Class IV post in the institution in question on 10.07.1981. The approval to his appointment had been made by the District Inspector of Schools on 10.05.1999. The institution came in grant-in-aid on 01.01.2004. On 22.05.2006, the State Government had issued a Government Order, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition, whereby directions were issued to all the institutions to deposit the managerial share within six months from the date the said institutions came into grant-in-aid. It is contended that the Manager of the institution did not deposit the share of the petitioner and other Class IV employees. Even when the time was extended by the District Inspector of Schools through order dated 26.09.2012 for depositing the managerial share, it appears that managerial share was not deposited. Thereafter, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2011. When the petitioner put forth his claim for being granted the pension his case was rejected through order dated 01.12.2015 by contending that as the petitioner has only rendered 7 years and 5 months of service and his service is less than the qualifying service which should be 10 years as such he is not entitled for pension. So far as his previous service from 10.07.1981 to 31.12.2003 is concerned, it is submitted that as the managerial share has not been given as such the petitioner is not entitled for inclusion of said period of service.