S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition is directed against the order dated 15.3.90 of the Deputy Director of Education, 4th Region Allahabad, passed in respect of petitioner's claims for pensionary benefits. Matrix of the facts is that the petitioner retired as an Asstt. Teacher from the Institution Shiv Charan Das Kanhaiya Lal Intermediate College, Allahabad on 30th June 1988. Initially, he made a debut in the service on 19.11.1956 as an Asstt. Teacher in the primary section attached to the aforesaid Institution. In July, 1968, he was appointed as an Asstt. Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section attached to the Institution. The service rendered by the petitioner in the Primary Section for the period between 19.11.1956 and 30th June, 1960 has not been reckoned towards qualifying service for the purposes of pension. It is non -counting of petitioner's services rendered between the period 19.11.56 and 30.6.68 and also non -payment of five increments from July 1980 to July 1985, that led the petitioner to filing the present petition.
(2.) HAVING heard the counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel appearing for the State Authorities, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The Deputy Director of Education has held that the service rendered by the petitioner in the primary section was not liable to be reckoned for purpose of pension because it was not a substantive service. He also held that the primary section was not on grants -in -aid list of the State Government and therefore, relying upon Regulation 361 of the Civil Services Regulations, the Deputy Director of Education has held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of service rendered in the Primary Section for the purposes of pension.
(3.) THE benefit of pension, it may be recalled, was extended to the State Aided Non -Government Institution by means of the G.O. dated 17.12.1965 whereby the State Govt. formulated rule known as U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employee's Contributory Provident Fund -Insurance Pension Rules (Triple Benefit Scheme). The said scheme applied to permanent employees serving in State Aided Educational Institution maintained either by the Local Bodies or by Private Management and recognised by a Competent Authority as such for the purpose of payment of grants -in -aid. As would be evident from Rule 3, the Triple Benefit Scheme under the rules is applicable to primary schools, Junior High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools, Degree Colleges and Training Colleges. Rule 19 of the Rules being relevant is quoted below, to the extent it is necessary for the purposes of the present case. 19 (a) Service will not count for pension unless employees holds a substantive post on a permanent establishment. (b) Continuous temporary or officiating service followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall also count as qualifying service. It is evident from clause (b) of Rule 19 that continuous temporary or officiating service followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall also count as qualifying services. The Regional Deputy Director of Education does not seem to have noticed clause (b) of Rule 19 of the Rules and has premised the impugned order solely on clause (a) of Rule 10 which provides that service will not count for pension unless employee holds a substantive post on a permanent establishment. That apart, there is nothing in the rules to indicate that Regulation 361 of the Civil Services Regulations is in any manner applicable to a case governed by Triple Benefit Scheme formulated by Govt. Order dated 17th Dec. 1965. The Regional Deputy Director has also not adverted to any of the grievances of the petitioner in his order as to non -payment of five increments. For this reason alone, the impugned order, in my opinion, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.3.1990 is quashed. The Regional Deputy Director of Education is directed to decide the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the body of this judgment, within a span of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.;