VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN the present writ petition the petitioner has sought the following prayer: a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.7.1999 passed by the opposite party no.4 Education Superintendent, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nawabganj, District Barabanki and the Government Order dated 8.8.1994 so far as it is said to have been made applicable for the petitioner, as contained in Annexures 5 and 3 to the writ petition. b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give all the pensionary benefit to the petitioner by treating her appointment as of a permanent and regular employee in Basic School run by a local body in the State and also to pay other allowances and benefit payable to such employee under the law. c) to issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit in the circumstances of the case. d) to award the costs of the petition to the petitioner. Brief facts for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner's husband late S.P.Srivastava was working on the post of Head Master in Junior Basic School, Gulariya Gadhi, District Barabanbki. He passed away on 31.5.1974 leaving behind the petitioner and minor children in the family. The petitioner being the wife was appointed on compassionate ground as Paricharika in Kanya Pathshala, Gulariya Gadhi, District Barabanki by order dated 3.7.1976 passed by opposite party no. 4, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner continued on the said post and ultimately she retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.1998. Thus the petitioner served the institution about 22 years. However, the petitioner was not provided pensionary benefit though she was treated to be permanent employee of the institution and the amount was deducted of provident fund scheme and of group insurance scheme from her salary. The petitioner was initially appointed on fixed pay of Rs. 165/ per month for one year on probation on the vacant post on compassionate ground.
(3.) COUNTER affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties 3 and 4 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was working as class IVth employee on fixed salary and by virtue of of G.O. dated 8.8.1994 it has been decided by the State Government that those class IV employees who were working on fixed salary and have neither been appointed on substantive vacancy nor have been selected by means of any selection process shall not come in the category of the regular employee. Thus the deductions under provident fund scheme, group insurance scheme, benefit of pension and family pension are not admissible to them. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefit, even if any amount is deducted.;