- (1.) Appellant Smt. Sarla Sharma currently aged 90 years is before this Court assailing the validity of the Judgment and order dated 12.1.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.34472 of 1996, Smt. Sarla Sharma v. U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad wherein claim of the petitioner-appellant to revise her pension calculating her qualifying service as 33 years and pay interest thereon, has been turned down. Factual matrix giving rise to the present special appeal in brief is that petitioner-appellant was appointed on 18.8.1951 and on attaining her age of superannuation, she retired on 31.1.1987. Thus, the petitioner has put in total 36 years of service and had an unblemished career. After her retirement, her pension and gratuity had been calculated and paid.
(2.) At the point of time, when she reached age of superannuation, her pension has been calculated on the qualifying service of 30 years and this much is reflected that thereafter the policy in question in this regard was amended, vide Government Order dated 25/26.8.1989 and therein, a resolve was taken that in respect of counting full qualifying service, 33 years would be computed in place of 30 years with effect from 19.11.1988. Thus, the petitioner claimed that as she has completed 36 years of service, accordingly, on the parameters of the aforesaid Government Order, her claim in question may be considered. As her claim in question was not being considered and correct calculation was not being made and settled as per Rules for calculating full qualifying service, she came to this Court by filing Writ Petition No.34472 of 1996 wherein the learned Single Judge turned down the request of the petitioner and accordingly, present special appeal is before us. Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted with vehemence that once the appellant was entitled/eligible for pension at the time of her superannuation and she was surviving and the amendment in question has been brought into force in the pension scheme then she is fully entitled for enhanced pension/to get more pension in respect of new formulated pension. In the light of this amendment, the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition in question and contrarily ought to have allowed the prayer of the petitioner and, as such the order passed by the learned single judge is liable to be set aside with a necessary directive to accept the claim of the petitioner-appellant.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has contended that rightful view has been taken by the learned Single Judge and no any interference is called for therewith. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation which emerges is that there is no dispute that the appellant had put in 36 years of service starting with effect from 18.8.1951 and ending on 31.1.1987 and this much is also accepted position that, at the said point of time, when the appellant has attained her age of superannuation, the pension in question was being computed on the formula of full qualifying service of 30 years. The State Government thereafter took a policy decision on 25/26.8.1989 in respect of counting full qualifying service, i.e., 33 years with effect from 19.11.1988 and in this background, the appellant claims that as she has rendered services for more than 36 years and is still surviving, therefore, as of now, her full qualifying service should be accepted as 36 years and then out of 36 years, 33 years may be recognized and based on the same, calculation in question be made.;