Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1554 (ALL)

LAKSHMI v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-05-13

A.P.SAHI, RAJAN ROY

body2014
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The prayer made in this petition is by a retired University Teacher praying for a writ of mandamus that an option is provided for G.P. Fund and other retiral benefits under the Government Order dated 23.1.2010 which is for Teachers including retired Teachers of Degree Colleges affiliated to University that should be extended to the petitioner as well. 3. Sri Ashok Khare has invited the attention of the Court that in such matters, when such discrimination was pointed out relating to the option of exercise of availability of funds and other post retiral benefits, this Court had intervened and struck down such Government Orders of the State Government. The judgment dated 26.10.2006 in the case of Dr. Shri Gopal Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others, has been filed alongwith the writ petition as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. 4. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the Government Order dated 23.1.2010 in relation to non-teaching staff and submits that the Circular of the Director of Higher Education indicates that an identical Government Order exists in relation to the teaching staff as well. He urges that such benefits have been extended after the matter was finalized by the Apex Court arising out of the judgment referred to herein above. 5. The contention, therefore, appears to be that there is a hostile discrimination being practiced by the State Government in not extending the aforesaid G.P.F. option and post retiral benefits as extended to the Teachers of Degree Colleges affiliated to the University indicated herein above. 6. In our considered opinion, there is no challenge raised to the Government Order dated 23.1.2010 on which reliance is being placed and referred to in the Circular dated 23.1.2010. To the contrary the prayer is for a mandamus that such benefits should be made available to the petitioners and other similarly situated Teachers. 7. We cannot grant this benefit inasmuch as in the absence of any challenge raised to the Government Order as referred to herein above, a mandamus cannot be issued. 8. To the contrary the prayer is for a mandamus that such benefits should be made available to the petitioners and other similarly situated Teachers. 7. We cannot grant this benefit inasmuch as in the absence of any challenge raised to the Government Order as referred to herein above, a mandamus cannot be issued. 8. The grant of equivalence of such benefits to University Teacher even otherwise is a matter of policy and the petitioner having retired from Gorakhpur University would be governed by the provisions of the State Universities Act in relation to employees of the University. In matter of finance, the State Government is the competent authority and the Government having not taken any decision to extend any such benefit, this, in our opinion, would entirely fall within the realm of policy decision for which no mandamus can be issued. The teachers of Degree Colleges form a different class as against the teachers of the University inasmuch as their status of employment and mode of recruitment are different. Consequently, the prayer made for treating the petitioner to be at par with the Teachers of Degree Colleges for grant of conversion of option from CPF to GPF and other retiral benefits is impermissible. 9. Even otherwise this may not be possible after 6 years of retirement of the petitioner and after 4 years of issuance of the said Government Order. 10. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.