- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 7. 3. 2008 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant filed the writ petition praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay his G. P. F. , Pension gratuity and other benefits due to him.
(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for deciding the issues raised in the appeal are; that the appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in the Unani Medical College, Allahabad (hereinafter called the "u. M. C. ") which at that time was a private Unani institution. U. M. C. , Allahabad was affiliated to Kanpur University vide order dated 17. 2. 1972 with effect from July, 1971. The State Government from time to time had fixed pay scales and Dearness Allowance for non-government institutions including the U. M. C. Reference has been made to the Government Orders dated 5. 10. 1974 and 16. 8. 1977. The State Government had also provided for grant to the U. M. C. , Allahabad to the extent of 50 per cent of expenses. The appellant worked in the U. M. C. , Allahabad as Lecturer and thereafter as Reader and attained the age of superannuation in the year 1978. State Legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Indian Medical Institutions (Acquisition and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1982 (hereinafter called the "act, 1982") to provide for acquisition and management of certain non-government institutions imparting instructions in Ayurvedic and Unani-Tibbi Systems of Medicine. The Act, 1982 was enforced on 17. 3. 1982. The State Government issued Government Order dated 2. 7. 1982 laying down certain conditions and guidelines for management of non-government Ayurvedic and Unani Colleges consequent to the aforesaid Act, 1982. The appellant claimed G. P. F. , Pension gratuity and other benefits due to him and had filed Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 7751 of 1991 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 28. 9. 1993. Special Appeal No. 5567 1994, State of U. P. v. Hakim Mohammad Shafi Ullah was filed by the State which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 24. 2. 1996 setting-aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The writ petition thereafter was heard and by the impugned judgment and order dated 7. 3. 2008 has been dismissed. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order has held that the U. M. C. , Allahabad was taken over by the Government by the Act, 1982 and only those persons who were employed at the time of acquisition became eligible to receive pension under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1982 and the appellant who had retired in the year 1978 was not entitled or eligible for pension. Learned Single Judge also observed that the appellant had retired in the year 1978 and the writ petition was filed in the year 1991 i. e. after 13 years. Learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner had not been able to establish under which provision of law he is entitled to claim pensionary benefits. Learned Counsel for the appellant challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge contended that prior to acquisition of U. M. C. , Allahabad the said college was affiliated with Kanpur University. He submitted that the name of the College is mentioned in the First Statutes of the Kanpur University framed under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act, 1973) at Serial No. 71 of Appendix E. It is submitted that by various Government Orders pay scales and payment of Dearness Allowance and other pecuniary benefits were made available to even non- government institutions including the U. M. C. , Allahabad. It is submitted that the State Government had also been granting aid to the institution and by virtue of Section 33 of the Act, 1973, it was obligatory for the University and the College to provide pensionary benefits. It is further submitted that the State having acquired the College, it is liable to pay the pensionary benefits.
(3.) SHRI G. C. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant is not entitled to any retiral benefits since when the Act, 1982 came into force he had already retired. He submitted that the benefit under the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, 1973 is not available to the appellant since the Management did not comply with the terms and conditions of the Act and had not enforced the contributory Provident Fund Scheme or any other pension scheme. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the appellant cannot claim parity with Dr. Narendra Singh Yadav, Medical Officer in the Zila Panchayat which is a semi government organization. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;