SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that services rendered by him prior to 30.6.1958 at Kashi Prasad Inter College, Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'institution') is not being counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension though in view of law laid down by this Court in Ram Rakesh Pal v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 34579 of 1993) decided on 1.9.1995, Ram Janam Singh v. Deputy Director of Education and others (Writ Petition No. 11855 of 1994) decided on 14.9.1995, Ramjee Das v. State of U.P. and others, (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14395 of 1.992) decided on 20.11.1996, Ram Adhar lal Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 1 UPLBEC 916 and Shital Prasad Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, 1990 AWC 1453 and Rules 19(a) and (b) of U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employee's Contributory Provident Fund, Insurance, Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") the petitioner is entitled to count the same and, therefore, the impugned order dated 13.6.2001 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, denying the said benefit is illegal.
(2.) IN brief the facts giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner claims to have worked as Assistant Teacher from 23.8.1956 to 30.6.1958 at the institution and thereafter he was appointed as Teacher in Sri Nagar Ji Vidyalaya Inter College, Krishna Nagar, Kanpur from 1.7.1958 and on attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 30.6.1988 from the post of Principal. While computing the qualifying services of petitioner for retiral benefits, the same has been taken into account from 1.7.1958 to 30.6.1988. The petitioner contended that his earlier services rendered in the institution should also have been included and for the said purpose made representation to the concerned authority and when the same remained unheeded, he filed a Writ Petition No. 10380 of 2001 which was disposed of on 22.3.2001 directing the concerned authority to decide his representation, pursuant whereto the impugned order has been passed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in respect of secondary educational institutions, service rendered by the Teachers in the earlier institution is liable to be counted as directed by this Court in various cases referred to above and, therefore, he is also entitled to the same benefit and any other view would be contrary thereto. He also placed reliance on Government Order dated 5.1.1996 in support of his claim that he is entitled to count the aforesaid service.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel has filed counter affidavit supporting the decision taken by the competent authority denying the claim of the petitioner and it has been stated that the institution was brought in grant-in-aid list subsequently when petitioner had already left it. In paragraphs No. 3 and 7 of the counter affidavit respondents have made this statement as a matter of fact and in reply thereto in Paras 4 and 7 of the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has not said anything regarding the aforesaid averment and there is not even a whisper or suggestion that the aforesaid institution was brought on grant-in-aid list prior to 30.6.1958. Besides, no provision has been brought to the notice of this Court wherein services rendered in unaided Non-Government School can be counted for the purpose of pension. Various Government Orders and rulings cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner are in different context and not applicable to the issue involved in this writ petition. G.O. dated 5.1.1996 is in respect to secondary educational institutions and provides for counting service rendered in unaided recognised educational institution provided it is the same institution wherefrom the teacher ultimately retired and for the period he has served when the institution was unaided, the Management deposits its share of provident fund in Government treasury by 31st of March, 1996.;