High Court · 2025

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was a substantive vacancy in L.T. Grade from 30.06.1977 in the fifth-respondent College and the petitioner was appointed on 23.01.1984 as L.T. Grade Teacher in the fifth- respondent Institution. The said appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools in its order dated 28.02.1984. Subsequently, the Management of the Institution then the Management was divided into two rival factions, and after that without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner an order dated 21.06.1990 terminating the services of the petitioner was passed and the said termination order was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 07.07.1990. Despite rejection of approval of termination order of the petitioner by the District Inspector of Schools, the respondent- Management has not released the salaries to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.1664 of 1991. Finally, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.01.1998 with a direction to the authorities to pay the arrears of salary and subsequently the petitioner continued in the said post and the salaries were also paid and finally after attaining the age of superannuation she got retired on 30.06.2010. While working in the said Institution the GPF account was also operated and standard deductions were made from the salary of the petitioner, but her pensionary benefits were not released, hence she has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.20290 of 2012 and the said writ petition was also disposed of vide order dated 25.04.2012, remanding the matter to the respondents to pass an appropriate order.

3. Upon the said disposal, the respondents have passed an order on 27.09.2012 and this order was assailed before this Court again in Writ A No.40625 of 2013, the said writ petition was also disposed of vide order dated 28.11.2016 once again remanding the matter to the concerned authorities. Finally, the respondents once again rejected the case of the petitioner vide order dated 25.01.2017 which are impugned in this writ petition.

4. Mainly, the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 on substantive vacancy and his appointment was approved by the competent authority in its order dated 28.02.1984. Undisputedly the petitioner has continued to work in the Institution till his retirement i.e. 30.06.2010. Though in the interregnum period the salaries were not paid to the petitioner in view of having disputes between the Management but upon intervention of this Court the salaries as well as the arrears were also released. In the said circumstances, as the petitioner has worked in continuity since 1984 to 2010.

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 counsel for the petitioner has relied on Section 33-A of the Act of 1982, which reads as below:- "33-A. Regularization of certain appointment. -(1) Every teacher directly appointed before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985, on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 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 date of such commencement, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such appointment up to 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 2010, hence she is covered under Section 33-A 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 1984 to 2010.

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 28.02.1984 and they have also admitted with regard to continuation of service of the petitioner and payment of salaries by virtue of orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions. Only assertion is that one of the writ petition which is disposed of in favour of the petitioner, filed by the Management as against the State preferred Special Leave Petition and the said special leave petition is pending and as far as the claim made by the petitioner under Section 33-A in his affidavit in paragraph 12, is not specifically denied in their counter affidavit.

8. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the facts noted above, as the petitioner has appointed and continued till his retirement i.e. from 23.01.1984 to 30.06.2010 and as her appointment was approved and she 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 and she 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 the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was a substantive vacancy in L.T. Grade from 30.06.1977 in the fifth-respondent College and the petitioner was appointed on 23.01.1984 as L.T. Grade Teacher in the fifth- respondent Institution. The said appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools in its order dated 28.02.1984. Subsequently, the Management of the Institution then the Management was divided into two rival factions, and after that without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner an order dated 21.06.1990 terminating the services of the petitioner was passed and the said termination order was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 07.07.1990. Despite rejection of approval of termination order of the petitioner by the District Inspector of Schools, the respondent- Management has not released the salaries to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.1664 of 1991. Finally, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.01.1998 with a direction to the authorities to pay the arrears of salary and subsequently the petitioner continued in the said post and the salaries were also paid and finally after attaining the age of superannuation she got retired on 30.06.2010. While working in the said Institution the GPF account was also operated and standard deductions were made from the salary of the petitioner, but her pensionary benefits were not released, hence she has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.20290 of 2012 and the said writ petition was also disposed of vide order dated 25.04.2012, remanding the matter to the respondents to pass an appropriate order.

3. Upon the said disposal, the respondents have passed an order on 27.09.2012 and this order was assailed before this Court again in Writ A No.40625 of 2013, the said writ petition was also disposed of vide order dated 28.11.2016 once again remanding the matter to the concerned authorities. Finally, the respondents once again rejected the case of the petitioner vide order dated 25.01.2017 which are impugned in this writ petition.

4. Mainly, the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 on substantive vacancy and his appointment was approved by the competent authority in its order dated 28.02.1984. Undisputedly the petitioner has continued to work in the Institution till his retirement i.e. 30.06.2010. Though in the interregnum period the salaries were not paid to the petitioner in view of having disputes between the Management but upon intervention of this Court the salaries as well as the arrears were also released. In the said circumstances, as the petitioner has worked in continuity since 1984 to 2010.

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 counsel for the petitioner has relied on Section 33-A of the Act of 1982, which reads as below:- "33-A. Regularization of certain appointment. -(1) Every teacher directly appointed before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985, on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 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 date of such commencement, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such appointment up to 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 2010, hence she is covered under Section 33-A 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 1984 to 2010.

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 28.02.1984 and they have also admitted with regard to continuation of service of the petitioner and payment of salaries by virtue of orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions. Only assertion is that one of the writ petition which is disposed of in favour of the petitioner, filed by the Management as against the State preferred Special Leave Petition and the said special leave petition is pending and as far as the claim made by the petitioner under Section 33-A in his affidavit in paragraph 12, is not specifically denied in their counter affidavit.

8. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the facts noted above, as the petitioner has appointed and continued till his retirement i.e. from 23.01.1984 to 30.06.2010 and as her appointment was approved and she 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 and she 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 the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad