Committee of Management v. State of U.P. and others, as such, till such time the said petition is

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4, Sri Abhineet Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 and Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.6 in Court today, which is taken on record.

2. Considering that the impugned order dated 25.03.2023 has been passed by respondent No. 3, as such, there is no need to issue notice to respondent No. 7.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the the age of superannuation on petitioner retired on attaining 31.03.2020.

5. The Committee of Management had sent a proposal for the petitioner's removal from service to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board vide proposal dated 06.02.2020, a copy of which is annexure-32 to the petition. The same was not approved by the Board vide order dated 11.11.2022, a copy of which is part of annexure-42 to the petition. It is admitted by the parties that the 2 WRIA No. 8583 of 2025 removal order, as passed by the Committee of Management could only be said to be final, upon approval by the Board.

6. Despite the aforesaid, the retiral dues were not paid.

7. The petitioner, having still not been paid the retiral dues, states that the respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order contending that as the Committee of Management has filed Writ-A No.1884 of 2023 in re: Committee of Management vs. State of U.P. and others, as such, till such time the said petition is decided, the competent authority has only approved the payment of provisional pension to the petitioner.

8. The contention is that once the removal order itself has not been approved by the competent authority, in this case the Board and as per Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Advocate, the competent authority should be the Selection Board, the fact of the matter would remain that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on

31.03.2020 and consequently he would be entitled to be paid all retiral dues.

9. The further contention is that the order impugned, so far as it only grants the provisional pension to the petitioner, is also patently misconceived, for the circumstances in which provisional pension is to be granted are not attracted in the facts of the instant case. Inasmuch as provisional pension would only be granted where departmental or criminal proceedings are pending against an employee, but in the instant case no proceedings are pending against the petitioner; rather, the proposal for removal from service sent by the Committee of Management has itself been disapproved by the authority concerned.

10. Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, on the basis of instructions sent by the District Inspector of Schools, Amethi, dated

30.08.2025, states that so far as to retiral benefits are concerned, the General Provident Fund and Group Life Insurance have already been paid and whatever amount has still not been paid, the petitioner may indicate the same, which would also be processed and paid in accordance with law. 3 WRIA No. 8583 of 2025

11. Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4, also states that the matter pertaining to the payment of final pension has been referred by the District Inspector of Schools to respondent No. 3 and a final decision in this regard will be taken within four weeks.

12. Considering the aforesaid, more particularly when the proposal for removal from service has itself been disapproved and even though the Committee of Management may have challenged the said order by filing a separate petition, yet the fact of the matter remains that this Court has not interfered with the disapproval order as passed by the authority concerned, and the petitioner having already retired from service on 31.03.2020, consequently, there does not appear to be any legal impediment in the payment of the retiral dues to the petitioner. Thus, the order impugned dated 25.03.2023, by which only provisional pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner by respondent No.3, cannot be countenanced in any view of the matter.

13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 25.03.2023, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside. The respondents are directed to process the claim of the petitioner for payment of the retiral dues in accordance with law under the relevant rules, which would be processed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

14. While making the payment of dues, the respondents would also consider the payment of interest for the delayed payment.

15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that certain arrears of salary have also not been paid.

16. With regard to the aforesaid grievance, it would be open for the petitioner to submit a representation through proper channel to the District Inspector of Schools, Amethi i.e. respondent No.4 within two weeks along with a certified copy of this order. In case, such a representation is made, the competent authority shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law under the relevant rules.

17. Let such decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the 4 WRIA No. 8583 of 2025 date of receipt of such representation. September 4, 2025 cks/- (Abdul Moin,J.) CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4, Sri Abhineet Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 and Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.6 in Court today, which is taken on record.

2. Considering that the impugned order dated 25.03.2023 has been passed by respondent No. 3, as such, there is no need to issue notice to respondent No. 7.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the the age of superannuation on petitioner retired on attaining 31.03.2020.

5. The Committee of Management had sent a proposal for the petitioner's removal from service to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board vide proposal dated 06.02.2020, a copy of which is annexure-32 to the petition. The same was not approved by the Board vide order dated 11.11.2022, a copy of which is part of annexure-42 to the petition. It is admitted by the parties that the 2 WRIA No. 8583 of 2025 removal order, as passed by the Committee of Management could only be said to be final, upon approval by the Board.

6. Despite the aforesaid, the retiral dues were not paid.

7. The petitioner, having still not been paid the retiral dues, states that the respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order contending that as the Committee of Management has filed Writ-A No.1884 of 2023 in re: Committee of Management vs. State of U.P. and others, as such, till such time the said petition is decided, the competent authority has only approved the payment of provisional pension to the petitioner.

8. The contention is that once the removal order itself has not been approved by the competent authority, in this case the Board and as per Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Advocate, the competent authority should be the Selection Board, the fact of the matter would remain that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on

31.03.2020 and consequently he would be entitled to be paid all retiral dues.

9. The further contention is that the order impugned, so far as it only grants the provisional pension to the petitioner, is also patently misconceived, for the circumstances in which provisional pension is to be granted are not attracted in the facts of the instant case. Inasmuch as provisional pension would only be granted where departmental or criminal proceedings are pending against an employee, but in the instant case no proceedings are pending against the petitioner; rather, the proposal for removal from service sent by the Committee of Management has itself been disapproved by the authority concerned.

10. Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, on the basis of instructions sent by the District Inspector of Schools, Amethi, dated

30.08.2025, states that so far as to retiral benefits are concerned, the General Provident Fund and Group Life Insurance have already been paid and whatever amount has still not been paid, the petitioner may indicate the same, which would also be processed and paid in accordance with law. 3 WRIA No. 8583 of 2025

11. Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4, also states that the matter pertaining to the payment of final pension has been referred by the District Inspector of Schools to respondent No. 3 and a final decision in this regard will be taken within four weeks.

12. Considering the aforesaid, more particularly when the proposal for removal from service has itself been disapproved and even though the Committee of Management may have challenged the said order by filing a separate petition, yet the fact of the matter remains that this Court has not interfered with the disapproval order as passed by the authority concerned, and the petitioner having already retired from service on 31.03.2020, consequently, there does not appear to be any legal impediment in the payment of the retiral dues to the petitioner. Thus, the order impugned dated 25.03.2023, by which only provisional pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner by respondent No.3, cannot be countenanced in any view of the matter.

13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 25.03.2023, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside. The respondents are directed to process the claim of the petitioner for payment of the retiral dues in accordance with law under the relevant rules, which would be processed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

14. While making the payment of dues, the respondents would also consider the payment of interest for the delayed payment.

15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that certain arrears of salary have also not been paid.

16. With regard to the aforesaid grievance, it would be open for the petitioner to submit a representation through proper channel to the District Inspector of Schools, Amethi i.e. respondent No.4 within two weeks along with a certified copy of this order. In case, such a representation is made, the competent authority shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law under the relevant rules.

17. Let such decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the 4 WRIA No. 8583 of 2025 date of receipt of such representation. September 4, 2025 cks/- (Abdul Moin,J.) CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench