Surendra Singh Yadav @ Dr. Surendra Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Parvati Devi and others versus State of U.P. and Others, Writ A No. 2576 of 2023 vide judgment and order dated 24th January 2024. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality since it has not been challenged and on the contrary has been complied with.

5. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that negative equality cannot be granted to petitioner in case it has been incorrectly conferred upon similarly situated employees. He has also adverted to the Government Order dated 15th April 1981 to submit that the said Government Order had been issued providing service benefits to all such teachers who had been granted extension of service. It is submitted that the benefit included grant of next pay scale to such teachers, which was to continue till the entire length of service but there is no provision in the aforesaid Government Order for counting of such benefit for purposes of pension. He has also submitted that petitioner is placing reliance on a Government Order dated 9th April 1992, which is not applicable in the present case since it does not indicate grant of any such benefits to teachers who have been awarded the national award and is in fact relatable only in such cases where extension of service has been granted without the aforesaid consideration of a national award.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the facts as indicated herein above are thus admitted.

7. The only question arising is whether petitioner would be entitled to count the extended period of service for pensionary benefits?

8. The aforesaid issue was directly under consideration before Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Parvati Devi (supra). The aforesaid petition was allowed placing reliance on the government order dated 9th April 1992 whereby it was held that paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Government Order clearly provides for counting of extended period of service to government employees, particularly in terms of Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook. The judgment has negatived the submissions of learned counsel as has been raised herein above. 3 WRIA No. 10241 of 2025

9. The judgment and order dated 24th January 2024 passed in aforesaid writ petition is as follows:- " Heard. Present petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated

17.03.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1-Additional Chief Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and with a further prayer to provide all regular retirement benefits to the petitioners counting the period of extension of service for the purpose of all service benefits including retirement benefits with 12% interest per annum. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 were appointed on 26.10.1983, 20.12.1983 and 09.09.1983 respectively. Petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 were awarded National Award to Teachers-2001, State Award to Teachers and National Award to Teachers- 2011 on 05.09.2002, in the year 2009 and 05.09.2012 respectively. It is further submitted that the State Government issued a Government Order dated 06.05.1982 with regard to extension of service for the period of two years of the teachers, who have won the 'National or State Award' and the said Government Order was further amended by Government Order dated

30.12.2014 and the period of extension was enhanced from two years to five years. Pursuant thereto, services of petitioners alongwith other similarly situated teachers were extended for a period of five years by an order dated

24.06.2015 issued by the State Government and after completing extended period, petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 retired on 31.03.2021, 31.10.2019 and

31.01.2020 but their services for extended period has not been counted in length of service for the purposes of determining their pension. It is further submitted that the claim of petitioners were rejected by the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 on the ground that there is no provision under the statute or in any Government Order for counting the five years extended period of service for the purposes for calculation of pension. It is further submitted that the said reason assigned in the impugned order is not acceptable for the reason that the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 09.04.1992 which is still in existence, wherein it 4 WRIA No. 10241 of 2025 has been provided that teachers who are working in Government Colleges and Schools on the post of Teacher, Head Master and Principal, if their services have been extended after the retirement under Article 520 of C.S.R. Rules then their extended period of service will not be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefit but if the services are extended under Rule 56 (A) of Financial Hand Book Vol. II (Part II to IV) in that case, the extended period of service will be counted for the purpose of payment of pensionary benefits. It is further submitted that the extension of period of service of petitioners were made by order dated 24.06.2015 alongwith 18 other teachers who were also awardee of national or State Award and teachers who were placed at Serial No. 2, 9, 15 and 19 were given benefit of Government Order dated

09.04.1992 by counting the length of extended period of their services for the purpose of pensionary benefits thus the petitioners have been discriminated. It is further submitted that though in the order dated 24.06.2015, extending the services of the petitioners along with other teachers, the provision was not mentioned but the order was passed under Rule 56(A) of the Financial Handbook Vol. II (Part II to IV) as the State Government in the case of similarly situated Lecturer Sri Bhagwati Prasad had passed an order dated

19.09.1998 for extending his services for a period of two years after he was awarded State Award under Rule 56(A) of Financial Hand Book Vol. II (Part II to IV). On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no provision under the Rules or in any Government Order which provides for calculating the extended period of services of the Teachers who were awarded National and State Award for the purposes of pensionary benefits. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the petitioner nos. 1 & 3 were awarded National Award to Teachers, 2001 and 2011 respectively and the petitioner no. 2 was awarded State Award to Teachers, 2009 and their services were extended as per the Government Order dated 06.05.1982 & 30.12.2014 for a period of five years or up to the age of 65 years along with 18 other similarly situated Teachers. Though there is no reference of any provision on the extension order of the 5 WRIA No. 10241 of 2025 petitioners dated 24.06.2015 but from perusal of order dated 19.09.1998, an inference has been drawn that such order of extension of service after receiving the award is treated to be passed under Rule 56 (A) of the Financial Handbook Vol. II (Part II to IV), as it was passed in the case of similarly situated Lecturer Sri Bhagwati Prasad by the State Government vide its order dated 19.09.1998. The Teachers who were given the benefit of extension of services along with the petitioners by order dated 24.06.2015 but the period of extended service were computed by the authorities for the purpose of pensionary benefit of the teachers namely Sri Ramanand Dixit placed at Serial no. 2, Smt. Meena Yadav at Serial No. 9, Smt. Munni Devi at Serial No. 15 and Sri Brijendra Narayan Khare at Serial No. 19. The said averment has specifically been pleaded by giving the details of the P.P.O in sub para 5 of Para 28, which is not disputed in the counter affidavit. The said action of the respondents is nothing but discriminatory in nature by adopting pick and choose method denying the same benefit to the petitioners which is clearly arbitrary and violative of Articl 14 of the Constitution of India. As far as submission of learned Standing counsel that there is no provision under the Rules and the G.O. dated 09.04.1992, which has been relied by the petitioners is not applicable in the present case for the reason that it does not talk about the Teachers who have been awarded by National or State Award. The said submission of learned Standing Counsel is not tenable in the eyes of law for the reason that as para 2 of the G.O. dated 09.04.1992 which provides that if the services of Teachers, Headmasters and Principals of the Government Schools and Colleges have been extended after their retirement then in that case, if the extension order has been passed under Article 520 of C.S.R. Rules, in that case, the Teachers are not entitled for the computation of that extended period for the purpose of pensionary benefit and in case the order is passed under Rule 56 (A) of the Financial Handbook Vol. II (Part II to IV), then the extended period of services will be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits. This G.O. talks only about extension of service period after the retirement and it does not provide any specific class or category of Teachers, Headmasters and Principals, so by this submission, the respondents are trying to create a class within the class which is not permissible and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of 6 WRIA No. 10241 of 2025 India. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to include the extended period of service for the purposes of pensionary benefits and make payment accordingly after re- determination of amount of pension along with arrears within a period of four months from the date of furnishing of certified copy of this order. In case the payment is not made within the aforesaid period, the respondents would be liable to pay simple interest @ 7.5 % per annum after the expiry of the aforesaid period till the actual payment is made."

10. This court has also examined aforesaid government order dated 9th April 1992, from a perusal of which, it is evident that a clear distinction has been drawn in the Government Order in paragraph 3 thereof between re- employment which would be governed by Article 520 of the Civil Service Regulations on one hand and extension of service, which would be governed by Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook on the other hand.

11. The government order clearly indicates that the aspect of extension of service would clearly come within the scope of Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook, whereby the aforesaid services would be counted for purposes of pensionary benefits.

12. The mere aspect that aforesaid government order does not refer specifically to extension of service to teachers on account of their receiving a national award, in the considered opinion of this court, is completely irrelevant since the government order dated 9th April 1992 would be applicable upon petitioner on account of their extension of service which would be governed by Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook and would not come within scope of re-employment, which is governed by Article 520 of the Civil Service Regulations as is clearly indicated in the said government order,.

13. In view of discussions made herein above., this court is in agreement with the judgment and order passed in the case of Parvati Devi (supra). 7 WRIA No. 10241 of 2025

14. Learned state counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Dr. Prem Dutt Chamoli versus State of UP and others, SLP No. 16808 of 1998.

15. However a perusal of the observations made therein as quoted in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the extension of service to such government employees who have received awards is not to be counted for purposes of seniority or for eligibility for promotion to any higher post.

16. In the considered opinion of this court, since the present aspect pertains only for pensionary benefits, the said judgment would be inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 31st July 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to count the extended period of service of petitioner for purposes of pensionary benefits. The said benefits along with arrears shall be paid within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority, failing which, simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum after expiry of the aforesaid period till actual payment is made, shall be payable.

18. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 26, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Parvati Devi and others versus State of U.P. and Others, Writ A No. 2576 of 2023 vide judgment and order dated 24th January 2024. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality since it has not been challenged and on the contrary has been complied with.

5. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that negative equality cannot be granted to petitioner in case it has been incorrectly conferred upon similarly situated employees. He has also adverted to the Government Order dated 15th April 1981 to submit that the said Government Order had been issued providing service benefits to all such teachers who had been granted extension of service. It is submitted that the benefit included grant of next pay scale to such teachers, which was to continue till the entire length of service but there is no provision in the aforesaid Government Order for counting of such benefit for purposes of pension. He has also submitted that petitioner is placing reliance on a Government Order dated 9th April 1992, which is not applicable in the present case since it does not indicate grant of any such benefits to teachers who have been awarded the national award and is in fact relatable only in such cases where extension of service has been granted without the aforesaid consideration of a national award.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the facts as indicated herein above are thus admitted.

7. The only question arising is whether petitioner would be entitled to count the extended period of service for pensionary benefits?

8. The aforesaid issue was directly under consideration before Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Parvati Devi (supra). The aforesaid petition was allowed placing reliance on the government order dated 9th April 1992 whereby it was held that paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Government Order clearly provides for counting of extended period of service to government employees, particularly in terms of Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook. The judgment has negatived the submissions of learned counsel as has been raised herein above. 3 WRIA No. 10241 of 2025

9. The judgment and order dated 24th January 2024 passed in aforesaid writ petition is as follows:- " Heard. Present petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated

17.03.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1-Additional Chief Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and with a further prayer to provide all regular retirement benefits to the petitioners counting the period of extension of service for the purpose of all service benefits including retirement benefits with 12% interest per annum. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 were appointed on 26.10.1983, 20.12.1983 and 09.09.1983 respectively. Petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 were awarded National Award to Teachers-2001, State Award to Teachers and National Award to Teachers- 2011 on 05.09.2002, in the year 2009 and 05.09.2012 respectively. It is further submitted that the State Government issued a Government Order dated 06.05.1982 with regard to extension of service for the period of two years of the teachers, who have won the 'National or State Award' and the said Government Order was further amended by Government Order dated

30.12.2014 and the period of extension was enhanced from two years to five years. Pursuant thereto, services of petitioners alongwith other similarly situated teachers were extended for a period of five years by an order dated

24.06.2015 issued by the State Government and after completing extended period, petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 retired on 31.03.2021, 31.10.2019 and

31.01.2020 but their services for extended period has not been counted in length of service for the purposes of determining their pension. It is further submitted that the claim of petitioners were rejected by the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 on the ground that there is no provision under the statute or in any Government Order for counting the five years extended period of service for the purposes for calculation of pension. It is further submitted that the said reason assigned in the impugned order is not acceptable for the reason that the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 09.04.1992 which is still in existence, wherein it 4 WRIA No. 10241 of 2025 has been provided that teachers who are working in Government Colleges and Schools on the post of Teacher, Head Master and Principal, if their services have been extended after the retirement under Article 520 of C.S.R. Rules then their extended period of service will not be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefit but if the services are extended under Rule 56 (A) of Financial Hand Book Vol. II (Part II to IV) in that case, the extended period of service will be counted for the purpose of payment of pensionary benefits. It is further submitted that the extension of period of service of petitioners were made by order dated 24.06.2015 alongwith 18 other teachers who were also awardee of national or State Award and teachers who were placed at Serial No. 2, 9, 15 and 19 were given benefit of Government Order dated

09.04.1992 by counting the length of extended period of their services for the purpose of pensionary benefits thus the petitioners have been discriminated. It is further submitted that though in the order dated 24.06.2015, extending the services of the petitioners along with other teachers, the provision was not mentioned but the order was passed under Rule 56(A) of the Financial Handbook Vol. II (Part II to IV) as the State Government in the case of similarly situated Lecturer Sri Bhagwati Prasad had passed an order dated

19.09.1998 for extending his services for a period of two years after he was awarded State Award under Rule 56(A) of Financial Hand Book Vol. II (Part II to IV). On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no provision under the Rules or in any Government Order which provides for calculating the extended period of services of the Teachers who were awarded National and State Award for the purposes of pensionary benefits. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the petitioner nos. 1 & 3 were awarded National Award to Teachers, 2001 and 2011 respectively and the petitioner no. 2 was awarded State Award to Teachers, 2009 and their services were extended as per the Government Order dated 06.05.1982 & 30.12.2014 for a period of five years or up to the age of 65 years along with 18 other similarly situated Teachers. Though there is no reference of any provision on the extension order of the 5 WRIA No. 10241 of 2025 petitioners dated 24.06.2015 but from perusal of order dated 19.09.1998, an inference has been drawn that such order of extension of service after receiving the award is treated to be passed under Rule 56 (A) of the Financial Handbook Vol. II (Part II to IV), as it was passed in the case of similarly situated Lecturer Sri Bhagwati Prasad by the State Government vide its order dated 19.09.1998. The Teachers who were given the benefit of extension of services along with the petitioners by order dated 24.06.2015 but the period of extended service were computed by the authorities for the purpose of pensionary benefit of the teachers namely Sri Ramanand Dixit placed at Serial no. 2, Smt. Meena Yadav at Serial No. 9, Smt. Munni Devi at Serial No. 15 and Sri Brijendra Narayan Khare at Serial No. 19. The said averment has specifically been pleaded by giving the details of the P.P.O in sub para 5 of Para 28, which is not disputed in the counter affidavit. The said action of the respondents is nothing but discriminatory in nature by adopting pick and choose method denying the same benefit to the petitioners which is clearly arbitrary and violative of Articl 14 of the Constitution of India. As far as submission of learned Standing counsel that there is no provision under the Rules and the G.O. dated 09.04.1992, which has been relied by the petitioners is not applicable in the present case for the reason that it does not talk about the Teachers who have been awarded by National or State Award. The said submission of learned Standing Counsel is not tenable in the eyes of law for the reason that as para 2 of the G.O. dated 09.04.1992 which provides that if the services of Teachers, Headmasters and Principals of the Government Schools and Colleges have been extended after their retirement then in that case, if the extension order has been passed under Article 520 of C.S.R. Rules, in that case, the Teachers are not entitled for the computation of that extended period for the purpose of pensionary benefit and in case the order is passed under Rule 56 (A) of the Financial Handbook Vol. II (Part II to IV), then the extended period of services will be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits. This G.O. talks only about extension of service period after the retirement and it does not provide any specific class or category of Teachers, Headmasters and Principals, so by this submission, the respondents are trying to create a class within the class which is not permissible and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of 6 WRIA No. 10241 of 2025 India. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to include the extended period of service for the purposes of pensionary benefits and make payment accordingly after re- determination of amount of pension along with arrears within a period of four months from the date of furnishing of certified copy of this order. In case the payment is not made within the aforesaid period, the respondents would be liable to pay simple interest @ 7.5 % per annum after the expiry of the aforesaid period till the actual payment is made."

10. This court has also examined aforesaid government order dated 9th April 1992, from a perusal of which, it is evident that a clear distinction has been drawn in the Government Order in paragraph 3 thereof between re- employment which would be governed by Article 520 of the Civil Service Regulations on one hand and extension of service, which would be governed by Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook on the other hand.

11. The government order clearly indicates that the aspect of extension of service would clearly come within the scope of Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook, whereby the aforesaid services would be counted for purposes of pensionary benefits.

12. The mere aspect that aforesaid government order does not refer specifically to extension of service to teachers on account of their receiving a national award, in the considered opinion of this court, is completely irrelevant since the government order dated 9th April 1992 would be applicable upon petitioner on account of their extension of service which would be governed by Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook and would not come within scope of re-employment, which is governed by Article 520 of the Civil Service Regulations as is clearly indicated in the said government order,.

13. In view of discussions made herein above., this court is in agreement with the judgment and order passed in the case of Parvati Devi (supra). 7 WRIA No. 10241 of 2025

14. Learned state counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Dr. Prem Dutt Chamoli versus State of UP and others, SLP No. 16808 of 1998.

15. However a perusal of the observations made therein as quoted in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the extension of service to such government employees who have received awards is not to be counted for purposes of seniority or for eligibility for promotion to any higher post.

16. In the considered opinion of this court, since the present aspect pertains only for pensionary benefits, the said judgment would be inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 31st July 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to count the extended period of service of petitioner for purposes of pensionary benefits. The said benefits along with arrears shall be paid within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority, failing which, simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum after expiry of the aforesaid period till actual payment is made, shall be payable.

18. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 26, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench