DAN SINGH BISHT Vs. SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
DAN SINGH BISHT
Secretary School Education Uttarakhand And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.06.2012 passed by Secretary, School Education, Dehradun/respondent no.1 denying pension/gratuity and other retiral benefits to the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for imposing heavy cost and penal interest for causing inordinate delay in settlement of dues of the petitioner, which has resulted in financial loss and injury to him.
(3.) The petitioner was appointed on 25.04.1977 on a regular substantive vacancy of a Chowkidar in Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Bhoolkharkwal Gaon, District Almora vide order dated 21.04.1977. At that relevant time, the institution was under the control of a body known as 'Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad'. Vide order dated 24.08.1985, services of the petitioner were regularized. On 30th June, 2011, the petitioner retired from service. Since the petitioner was not paid any post retiral benefits or pension, he submitted representation before the authorities, but nothing was done, hence he filed Writ Petition No. 451 of 2003 (SS), which was decided on 22.07.2011 and the petitioner was directed to file representation before the Secretary, Education, Govt. of Uttarakhand. The Secretary, Education was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. In the said order the Secretary, Education was directed to pass appropriate order in view of the observations of the Court and the law laid down by this Court as well as by Hon'ble the Apex Court in such matters. In the judgment, the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court has given a clear cut finding in favour of the petitioner in following manner:-
"The case of the petitioner is that he has been working on substantive vacancy since 1977 and though he has been regularized in 1995, he has been working on a regular substantive vacancy. This assertion of the petitioner has not been denied by the State in its counter affidavit. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner has been working continuously on a permanent substantive vacancy since 1977 and consequently regularized in 1995, he is liable to be given pension. Hon'ble Apex Court in 'R Kapoor vs. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication), Income tax and Anr., 1995 1 UPLBEC 89, has held that the pension and gratuity are not bounty and it is a right of a retired government servant.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.