- (1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the pension and all other post retirement benefits to the petitioner at par with the teachers working in the recognized aided institution.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that petitioner Sri Sudhakar Tiwari, (since dead) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') was appointed in Hartman Inter College, Ghazipur as Assistant Teacher in 1954. He continued in the said institution upto 1961. In 1961, he joined as Assistant Teacher in Rajghat Besant School (hereinafter referred to as the "Institution') and continued to teach in the institution upto 30.6.1993. The said institution was under grant in aid upto 1974. The petitioner has been paid salary by the Government upto 1974 and thereafter by the Committee of Management. The petitioner retired on 30.6.1993. Having regard to the period during which the petitioner worked as teacher in the institution when it was in grant in aid, the pension of Rs. 203.25 p. has been fixed taking length of service in the institution at 12 years six months and average salary of last three years at Rs.343.33 p. The contention of the petitioner is that his services from 2.5.1961 to 30.6.1993, till the date of retirement, should be considered for fixing the pension as it is fixed in the case of teachers of aided institutions. The petitioner has been highly discriminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a sum of Rs. 203.25 p. was a very meagre amount and one could not manage his livelihood with this meagre amount. He submitted that there is no provision in the Intermediate Education Act which empowers the State to frame rules or regulations for aided institutions only. Since the State is only empowered to frame rules in respect of recognized institutions, the U.P. Contributory Provident Fund Pension Insurance Rules will be deemed to apply to the employees of the recognized institutions. In this view of the matter besides pension being a right and not a bounty, the petitioner is also entitled to get his pension under the aforementioned pension rules as the institution was admittedly a recognized institution. He further submitted that there is absolutely no basis to distinguish the cases of the institutions, which are getting aid from the State Government and the recognized institutions, which are not getting aid from the State Government. If the teachers of the aided institutions are entitled to get pension, there is absolutely no basis to refuse grant of pension to the teachers of unaided recognized institutions.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted that it is not the case that the petitioner has not been granted pension. The pension is being granted under the U.P. Contributory Provident Fund Pension Insurance Rules which applies to the employees serving in the State aided educational institutions. The length of service of the petitioner for the purposes of computation of pension was taken during which the institution was in grant in aid and the petitioner received salary from the State Exchequer. During the period when the institution was receiving aid, the petitioner was treated as the Government employee. When the institution ceased to be Government aided, salary has not been paid by the State but has been paid by the Committee of Management. Therefore, the period during which he served the institution, when it was not under the grant in aid, cannot be considered for computation of grant of pension as he ceased to be the Government employee. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.;