MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Rajendra Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
(2.) The petitioner is before this Court with request to issue direction commanding the respondent no.3, Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Vth Region, Varanasi to sanction the post retiral benefits i.e. gratuity and pension from 1.4.2018 with interest within stipulated time alongwith interest.
(3.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner apprises to the Court that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 7.3.2018 passed in Writ A No.5737 of 2018 (Ishrat Jahan vs. State of UP and 3 others) and as such, similar indulgence may also be accorded in this writ petition also. For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgment dated 7.3.2018 is quoted as under:- "9. The appointment of the petitioner was made on ad hoc basis. The institution where the petitioner was appointed as ad hoc teacher is governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short Act,1921) and Act No. 5 of 1982. In the Act, 1921 the word 'ad hoc' or 'temporary' is not defined. Section 16-E deals with the appointment of teachers in Intermediate Colleges; under Section 16E (11) the temporary appointment were permissible only against a temporary vacancy caused by grant of leave to a incumbent for a period not exceeding six months. Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 deals with the appointment of Heads of the institution and teachers. Proviso to Regulation-2 sub-clause (1) also permit to make appointment against a temporary vacancy caused by grant of leave for a period not exceeding six months or by death, retirement or by suspension. 10. The State Government amended U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 drastically by U.P. Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (U.P. Act No. 26 of 1975). The same difficulties arose due to said amendment and as such, the State Government vide Notification dated 18th August, 1975 issued U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975 in respect of substantive or leave vacancy or any vacancy existing or occurring during the academic session of the head of the institution of teachers. For the first time, the management was empowered to make ad hoc appointment in the manner provided under the said order. The State Government in order to overcome further difficulties which arose, issued Removal of Difficulties Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh orders between the years 1975 -1977. There is no need to go into details of those orders as it is not relevant for the issue involved in the present case. Suffice would be to say, that for the first time, the concept of ad-hoc appointment was introduced under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,1921. 11. In the year 1981 the State Government established the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board vide Ordinance No. 8 of 1981, which was promulgated on 10th July, 1981. The State Government in exercise of power under section 33 of the said ordinance issued Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 on 31 July, 1981, which was followed by (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1982 on 11th September, 1981. Both these orders were issued laying procedure for appointment on ad-hoc basis against the substantive vacancy and short term vacancies. 12. After the enforcement of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, the Committee of Management was empowered to make the ad-hoc appointment under Section 18 of the Act. The said section was amended by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1993 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 2001. From the aforesaid statutory provisions it is evident that the ad-hoc appointments were permissible by following statutory provisions which also requires approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The payment of salary of the ad-hoc teachers appointed under the aforementioned statutory provisions are made by the State Fund/Salary Payment Account. 13. Concededly, the petitioner was initially appointed as ad hoc teacher, her appointment was made against the short term vacancy. She worked for more than 25 years and reached her age of superannuation on 1.7.2017 (under sessions benefit upto 31.3.2018). 14. The Civil Service Regulation as applicable in Uttar Pradesh are intended to define the prerequisite conditions for grant of pension in the Government Service/Civil Department. The Article 361 of Chapter XVI of the Civil Service Regulations provides conditions of qualifications for pension. Article 361 reads as under :- "The service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions- a) the service must be under Government, b) the employment must be substantive and permanent and c) the service must be paid by Government." 15. Article 424 of Chapter XVIII of the Civil Service Regulations provides the following kinds of pension admissible to a Government servant (a) compensation pension (b) invalid pensions (c) superannuation pensions (d) retiring pensions. 16. The Civil Service Regulation as applicable in Uttar Pradesh is a preconstitutional Rules. The U.P.Fundamental Rules which has been made under section 241 (2) ( b) of the Government of India Act, 1935 came into force with effect from 1st April, 1942. Chapter 9 deals with the compulsory retirement. Fundamental Rule 56 (e) provides for retiring of a Government servant. Clause (e) of Fundamental Rule 56 reads as under: "(e) A retiring pension shall be payable and other retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rule: Provided that where a Government servant who voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this rule the appointing authority may allow him, for the purposes of pension and gratuity, if any, the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation, whichever be less." 17. The short question which need determination in this case is whether the petitioner who was appointed on adhoc basis and also superannuated in the same capacity without her regularisation can be held to work on a regular basis. The terms under "ad hoc" "stopgap" and "fortuitous" came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India, (2000) 8 SCC 25. The Court found that a person, who has a requisite qualification and who is appointed with the approval of the appropriate authority and if he is allowed to continue on the post for a considerable long time then such appointment cannot be held to be stopgap/ fortuitous or purely adhoc appointment. The Supreme Court observed as under :- "In service jurisprudence, a person who possesses the requisite qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he is appointed with the approval and consultation of the appropriate authority and continues in the post for a fairly long period, then such an appointment cannot be held to be "stopgap or fortuitous or purely ad hoc". 18. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh K. Sharma v. Rajasthan Civil Services, (2001) 1 SCC 637, considered the word "substantive basis" following the judgment of Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P. (AIR 1981 SC 41). The Supreme Court held that if an incumbent holds the post for indefinite period then it cannot be said to be adhoc appointment. The Court held as under :- "If an incumbent is appointed after due process of selection either to a temporary post or a permanent post and such appointment, not being either stopgap or fortuitous, could be held to be on substantive basis. But if the post itself is created only for a limited period to meet a particular contingency, and appointment thereto is made not through any process of selection but on a stopgap basis then such an appointment cannot be held to be on substantive basis. The expression "substantive basis" is used in the service jurisprudence in contradistinction with ad hoc or purely stopgap or fortuitous." 19. This Court in the case of Dr. Hari Shanker Asopa v. State of U.P. And another, reported (1989) UPLBEC 501, considered the Article 361 and Clause (e) of Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules as applied in Uttar Pradesh and the Civil Service Regulations. Dr. Hari Shanker Asopa was appointed on temporary basis on the post of lecturer in the department of Surgery at S.N.Medical College, Agra on 4th August, 1964. In the year 1969, he was appointed on a substantive post of Reader in Surgery at same College that appointment too was on temporary basis. The term of the appointment was one year or till the candidate selected by the U.P.Public Service Commission was available, whichever was earlier. After three years, he was promoted to the post of Professor in Surgery in Jhansi Medical College. The said appointment was also temporary and it was for a period of one year or till the candidate regularly selected by the U.P.Public Service Commission was available or till the services of Dr. Asopa were needed, whichever was earlier. Dr. Asopa uninterruptedly continued for 18 years as a Lecturer, Reader and Professor on temporary basis. His request for voluntary retirement was allowed by the State Government in the year 1983 with a condition that no pension would be paid to him, as he was not permanent on any post of the Government Service. Dr. Asopa feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 21.2.1983 preferred a writ petition before this Court. 20. In the case of Hans Raj Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (3) UPLBEC 2073 (supra) this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employees Provident Fund, Insurance and Pension Rules, 1964 also. Rule 43 ,44 and 45 of the said Rule has been considered at length by this Court and also the Regulations 465 and 465 A of the U.P.Civil Service Regulations. The Court held as under :- "In the present case, so far as the condition Nos. A and C are concerned, they are satisfied and the dispute is only with respect to condition No. B i.e., lack of permanent character of service. However, in out view, the aforesaid provisions stand obliterated after the amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 by U.P.Act No. 24 of 1975 which allows retirement of a temporary employees also and provides in clause (e) that a retiring pension is payable and other retiral benefits, if any, shall be available to every Government Servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this Rule. Since the aforesaid amendment Rule 56 was made by an Act of Legislature, the provisions contained otherwise under Civil Service Regulations, which are pre-constitutional, would have to give way to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56. In other words, the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 shall prevail over the Civil Service Regulations, if they are inconsistent. Condition -B (supra) of Article 361 of Civil Service Regulations are clearly inconsistent with Fundamental Rule 56 and thus is in operative." 21. The principle, which can be discerned from the above mentioned judgment, is that if adhoc/stopgap/temporary employee having essential qualification and is appointed in terms of the statutory Rules and he continues for a long time and fulfils the qualifying service, is entitled for pension and other retiral benefits. 22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner is entitled for the post retiral benefits as her appointment was made in terms of the statutory Rules and the same was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 8.5.2013. Admittedly, on account of an interim order dated 20.1.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.38769 of 2000, the petitioner continued to work in the institution and finally retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 1.7.2017 (worked under the sessions benefit upto 31.3.2018) and she worked uninterruptedly for more than 25 long years. 23. A direction is issued to the respondents to pay the post retiral benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order. 24. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. 25. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for the arrears of salary for the period from 3.7.1992 to 7.5.2013. " ;