Sudhir Agarwal - (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: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-fix the pension of petitioner in view of selection grade salary and make the payment of arrears of pension in the light of his selection grade salary. (ii) Issue any other writ petition or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner." This writ petition was disposed of at the threshold, i.e., at the admission stage on the very first date vide judgment dated 22.2.2002 vide the following order: During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner comes up with the prayer that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation before the concerned authority, a direction may be given to take appropriate decision in respect to the claim of the petitioner as has been pleaded in the writ petition. On the facts of the present case, it will be better if the petitioner is asked to make a fresh representaiton detailing his grievance. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of the submission as has been made on behalf of the petitioner, it is hereby directed that in the event, the petitioner makes a representation before the concerned authority alongwith certified copy of this order, and a copy of writ petition, the concerned authority will decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order alongwith representations received by the concerned authority. With this direction, writ petition is disposed of finally." Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, Sri. A.K. Singh, the then Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh Mandal, Azamgarh has passed the impugned order. It says that the period of absence from 1.7.1967 to 30.6.1973, claimed to be the service rendered in primary schools maintained by Basic Education Parishad though record in respect thereof was not available in the office of the concerned Basic Education Officer and in absence of any material to verify the same, petitioner's claim that his absence during the said period is accepted on medical ground in compliance of High Court's order dated 22.2.2002, and the earlier order dated 30.5.2002 is modified accordingly. Despite this order, since the aforesaid period was not given due credit by the authorities, the petitioner claims to have made certain representations and then filed this writ petition in 2007.
(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. The petitioner filed an impleadment application to implead Treasury Officer, Ballia as respondent No. 6 which was allowed on 6.10.2010. In the meantime, on 20.8.2010, this Court also passed an order directing DIOS, Ballia to produce entire service record of petitioner including the record relating to decision taken in pursuance of the order dated 22.2.2002 of this Court. On 6.10.2010, this Court observed that there was no direction given by the Court that any part of service of the petitioner has to be recognised in a particular manner. Hence, wherefrom the then Deputy Director of Education found that he had to comply Court's order in a particular way, as mentioned in his order dated 20.4.2004, which was also stated in para 6 of counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. This Court thus directed respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to appear and explain the circumstances.;