Dinesh Kumar Yadav vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

"36. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that services rendered in the work-charged establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid rule for grant of pension. The arrears of 3 WRIA No. 11749 of 2020 pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed."

4. Mainly, the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1988 on substantive vacancy and his appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools Mainpuri vide its order dated 05.06.1989. Undisputedly the petitioner has continued to work in the Institution till his retirement i.e. 31.03.2020. In the said circumstances, as the petitioner has worked in continuity since 1988 to 2020.

5. In view of Section 33-A of the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1982"), the petitioner's service is deemed to be regularized. To support his contention learned Senior Counsel Shri Ashok Khare, further has relied on Section 33- A (1-B) of the Act of 1982, which reads as below:- "33-A. Regularization of certain appointment. -(1-B) Every teacher directly appointed after June 12, 1985 and before May 13, 1989 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the Certificate of Teaching Grade in accordance with para 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, who possess the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualification in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall with effect from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such ad hoc appointment the date of such commencement."

6. In view of the above said provision the teachers who were appointed against the substantive vacancy and have possessed the qualification prescribed under the Act shall with effect from the date of such commencement be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity. Accordingly, by taking the facts into consideration and as the petitioner has been appointed on a substantive vacancy and continued till 2020, hence he is covered under Section 33-A (1-B) of the Act of 1982, which regularize the services/ appointment of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for release of the pension and other retiral benefits as she has continued in service from 1988 to 2020. 4 WRIA No. 11749 of 2020

7. Though, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which they have admitted about the appointment of the petitioner and approval is made on such appointment by the District Inspector of Schools in his order dated

05.06.1989 and they have also admitted with regard to continuation of service of the petitioner and payment of salaries. And as far as the claim made by the petitioner under Section 33-A in his affidavit in paragraph 13, is not specifically denied in their counter affidavit.

8. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the facts noted above, as the petitioner is appointed and continued till his retirement i.e. from

08.07.1988 to 31.03.2020 and as the appointment was approved and has also got the benefit as per Section 33-A of the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act 1982. In view of the said circumstances, it is considered that the appointment of the petitioner is deemed to be regularized as per Section 33-A (1-B) and he is entitled to retiremental benefits. Accordingly, this Court held that the petitioner is entitled for all retiremental benefits.

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed with a direction upon the respondents to calculate the retirement benefits and release all pensionary benefits regularizing the services of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. September 24, 2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

"36. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that services rendered in the work-charged establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid rule for grant of pension. The arrears of 3 WRIA No. 11749 of 2020 pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed."

4. Mainly, the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1988 on substantive vacancy and his appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools Mainpuri vide its order dated 05.06.1989. Undisputedly the petitioner has continued to work in the Institution till his retirement i.e. 31.03.2020. In the said circumstances, as the petitioner has worked in continuity since 1988 to 2020.

5. In view of Section 33-A of the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1982"), the petitioner's service is deemed to be regularized. To support his contention learned Senior Counsel Shri Ashok Khare, further has relied on Section 33- A (1-B) of the Act of 1982, which reads as below:- "33-A. Regularization of certain appointment. -(1-B) Every teacher directly appointed after June 12, 1985 and before May 13, 1989 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the Certificate of Teaching Grade in accordance with para 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, who possess the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualification in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall with effect from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such ad hoc appointment the date of such commencement."

6. In view of the above said provision the teachers who were appointed against the substantive vacancy and have possessed the qualification prescribed under the Act shall with effect from the date of such commencement be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity. Accordingly, by taking the facts into consideration and as the petitioner has been appointed on a substantive vacancy and continued till 2020, hence he is covered under Section 33-A (1-B) of the Act of 1982, which regularize the services/ appointment of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for release of the pension and other retiral benefits as she has continued in service from 1988 to 2020. 4 WRIA No. 11749 of 2020

7. Though, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which they have admitted about the appointment of the petitioner and approval is made on such appointment by the District Inspector of Schools in his order dated

05.06.1989 and they have also admitted with regard to continuation of service of the petitioner and payment of salaries. And as far as the claim made by the petitioner under Section 33-A in his affidavit in paragraph 13, is not specifically denied in their counter affidavit.

8. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the facts noted above, as the petitioner is appointed and continued till his retirement i.e. from

08.07.1988 to 31.03.2020 and as the appointment was approved and has also got the benefit as per Section 33-A of the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act 1982. In view of the said circumstances, it is considered that the appointment of the petitioner is deemed to be regularized as per Section 33-A (1-B) and he is entitled to retiremental benefits. Accordingly, this Court held that the petitioner is entitled for all retiremental benefits.

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed with a direction upon the respondents to calculate the retirement benefits and release all pensionary benefits regularizing the services of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. September 24, 2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad