Mahavir Prasad v. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Others) wherein the Court concerned b
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103672 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18270 of 2021 Petitioner :- Mahaveer Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Suresh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. The writ petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondents to release the gratuity along with admissible interest and a further prayer to direct the respondents to pay regular pension on the basis of 6th & 7th Pay Commissions as well as decide the representation dated 23.10.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee (peon) in the institution of respondent no.4 namely Sardar Ballabh Bhai Junior High School, Patari, District- Fatehpur. He further submits that when one post of clerk fell vacant after retirement of a permanent clerk on 31.11.1996, the petitioner moved a representation before the authorities concerned for his promotion and when nothing was done, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2867 of 1999 (Mahavir Prasad vs. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Others) wherein the Court concerned by order dated 10.02.1999, directed the authorities to decide the representation in accordance with law. He was also aggrieved by the fact that his additional promotion was not considered for which Writ Petition No.35109 of 1999 (Mahabeer Prasad vs. The District Basic Education Officer and 3 others) was filed and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.08.1999, directing the respondents to reconsider the promotion of the petitioner. After his retirement on 30.04.2012, the post retiral benefits were not given to him, therefore, another writ petition being Writ Petition No.18895 of 2016 (Mahaveer Prasad vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of vide order dated 27.04.2016, directing the respondents to release the pension and gratuity within two months. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondents issued pension to the petitioner but in the pension order, they have not extended the benefit of promotional pay scale and A.C.P. (Assured Carried Progression), therefore, the petitioner filed representation before the authorities concerned dated 25.05.2018 and 18.11.2018 and when nothing was done, he approached this Hon'ble Court by means of filing Writ-A No.22720 of 2018 (Mahaveer Prasad vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad And 3 Others) and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.11.2018, directed the authorities concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid order, order dated 17.01.2019 was passed rejecting the promotional pay scale and benefit of A.C.P. of the petitioner, which was again challenged by means of filing Writ Petition No.17179 of 2019 (Mahaveer Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Others) in which counter affidavit was called and the said writ is pending for disposal. The gratuity of the petitioner has not been released till date and the extended benefits of the 6th and 7th Pay Commission have also not been given to the petitioner, therefore, the present petition has been filed. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that in compliance of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court concerned in Writ Petition No.18895 of 2016 (Mahaveer Prasad vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) on 27.04.2016, payment of pension is being regularly made on the basis of Pension Payment Order (P.P.O.) No.004/042/02004 issued by Addl. Director Treasury and Pension, Prayagraj. He further contends that for A.C.P. approval and sanction of promotion pay-scale, the petitioner has preferred Writ- A No.22720 of 2018 (Mahaveer Prasad vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad And 3 Others) wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.11.2018, directed the respondent authorities to pass reasoned and speaking order. In compliance therewith, the answering-respondents by order dated 17.01.2019, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of unsatisfactory service, therefore, he was not entitled for the A.C.P. as per the relevant rules. He further submits that at the time of petitioner's retirement, the benefit of gratuity was not available for Class-IV employees and the said benefit has been provided by the Government by means of Government Order No.94/68-3-2021-Writ-288/2014 dated 24.02.2021. He also contends that at the time of petitioner's retirement, 6th Pay Commission's recommendation was prevailing thus payment has been made to the petitioner on the basis of pay fixation in view of recommendation of 6th Pay Commission, and the same is evident from the service records of the petitioner. It is settled procedure that the proceedings of pay fixation and determination of pension are made on the basis of last-drawn basic pay of the incumbent. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause-9 of the Order No.39/2016-Sa.-3-923/10-2016-308/2016 Government dated 23.12.2016 wherein specific directions had been given to the Treasury for pay revision of teaching and non-teaching employees in view of the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission. It is further contended that the records received from the Treasury shows that the petitioner is being paid the basic pension of Rs.10216.00, which was revised as per the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission schedule in terms of Para-4 of the Government order dated 23.12.2016. He further submits that pursuant to the Government order which provides the benefit of gratuity to the Class-IV employees of the aided institution, after receipt of relevant Form-5 from the Management of the concerned institution, the same has been sent to the Addl. Director, Treasury and Pension Prayagraj, Region- Prayagraj for approval. He further submits that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that pension has been released in his favour. However, he is not entitled for the gratuity, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The aforesaid version has not been disputed in the rejoinder affidavit.
Decision
In view of the above discussion as well as perusal of the records shows that the relief as prayed for has already been granted, therefore, nothing remains in the petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Kalp Nath Singh Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad