P.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) BY an order dated 10 -7 -1962, passed by the Committed of Management, respondent No. 4, the petitioner. Smt. Raj Kumari Kapoor was appointed on probation for one year on the Post of Music Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 75 -200 (Annexure 'II'), She joined as Music Teacher in the institution run under the name of Rama Devi Balika Inter College, which is a recognised and aided educational institution, on 12 -7 -1962. By an order dated 19 -1 -1966, the petitioner was granted promotion from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade teacher from 1 -7 -1965, from which date she was placed on probation. By an order dated 17 -1 -1966 (Annexure 'IV'), the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools (hereinafter referred to as 'RIGS'), Allahabad, respondent No. 2, granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner in L.T. Grade, Subsequently, by means of an order dated 2 -(sic)9 (Annexure 'V'), she was further promoted to the post of Lecturer which appointment letter was issued after obtaining approval from respondent No. 2 on 3 -10 -1979. She retired from service on 30 -6 -1984. By an order dated 26 -12 -1986 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, respondent No. 1, the petitioner's pension was fixed at Rs. 239/ - per month with effect from 1 -7 -1984 (Annexure 'VI' to the petition). While fixing this amount, her service as C.T. Grade teacher from 12 -7 -1962 to 30 -6 -1965 was not taken into account. The petitioner, therefore, filed a representation dated 29 -1 -1987 (Annexure 'VII') before the Deputy Director of Education, respondent No. 1, for rectification of the pension of the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 3, who, by means of a letter dated 20 -1 -1989 (Annexure 'VIII'), intimated respondent No. 1 that the petitioner had been continuously working in the institution from 12 -7 -1962. The Manager of the institution, by means of his letter dated 25 -5 -1987 (Annexure 'IX') made a similar recommendation. By an order dated 12 -12 -67 (Annexure 'IX'), passed by RIGS, Allahabad, respondent No. 2, the date of substantive appointment of the petitioner was specified as 24 -7 -1962. This order also specified the date from which deductions towards Provident Fund were to be made. Accordingly, the deductions from the pay of the petitioner towards Provident Fund were continuously made from July, 1972 onwards. Her Service Book also specified the date of confirmation of her service as 24 -7 -1962 (Annexure 'X'), Respondent No. 1, however, rejected the petitioner's claim by his order dated 4 -4 -1989 (Annexure 'XI') and did not consider her length of service for the period from 12 -(sic) -1962 to 30 -6 -1965 for computing the pension admissible to the petitioner. In pursuance of this order, the Manager of the Management Committee, by his letter dated 3 -5 -1989 (Annexure 'XII'), intimated this decision to the petitioner The contention of the petitioner is that her service for the period from 12 -7 -1962 to 30 -6 -1965 for computing her pension has been rejected without any rational basis and the same is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record. In para. 4 of the counter -affidavit it was alleged that the petitioner was appointed in L.T. Grade with effect from 1 -7 -1965 for which the approval was given by RIGS on 17 -1 -1966. It was denied that the petitioner was substantially appointed in C.T. Grade from 12 -7 -1992. In para. 6 it was denied that the petitioner was granted promotion from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade. In para. 8, it was stated that the services of the petitioners C.T. Grade from 12 -7 -1962 to 30 -6 -1965 were not approved by RIGS and so this period could not be included in regular service of the petitioner. In para. 13 of the counter -affidavit, it is reiterated that the petitioner's services from 12 -7 -1962 to 30 -6 -1965 were neither duly approved by the competent authority nor she was qualified to teach in C.T. Grade, inasmuch as she was not trained. Therefore the period of services of the petitioner from 12 -7 -1962 to 30 -6 -1965 could not be taken into account for the sanction of pension.
(3.) IT is, therefore, an undisputed fact that the petitioner, by an order dated 10 -7 -1962, was appointed as Music Teacher and was directed to join on the post on 12 -7 -1962. It has not been disputed that in pursuance of this order the petitioner did join the services on 12 -7 -1962 as a Music Teacher. By an order dated 19 -1 -1966 (Annexure 'III'), the petitioner was promoted in the grade of Rs. 120 -300 and was placed on probation with effect from 1 -7 -1965 The contention of the respondents to the contrary that the petitioner was not given any promotion from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade cannot, therefore be accepted. Her appointment got approval from the DIOS on 17 -1 -1966 (Annexure -'IV'). It is also not disputed that in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 10 -7 -1962 the petitioner joined institution on 12 -7 -1962 and continuously functioned in the institution till she retired from service on 30 -6 -1984.;