Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 771 (UTT)

Jag Pal Singh v. G. B. Pant University

2016-10-26

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner is a Physical Training Instructor (in short “P.T.I.”) in Campus School Pantnagar. The school is admittedly neither a Government College nor is it under the grant-in-aid. However, the contention of the petitioner is that it is under the full persuasive control of G.B. Pant University (from hereinafter referred to as ‘University’), which is an instrumentality of the State. 2. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that he will reach the age of superannuation and retire from service on 31.10.2016. Much prior to this date, he has already moved an application before the concerned authority for giving him benefit of session in view of Government Order dated 01.06.2012 and allow him to continue till the end of academic session i.e. up to 31st March, 2017. Since this is being denied to the petitioner, hence, he was constrained to file the present writ petition before this Court. 3. Today counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in the Court, which is taken on record. The case of the respondents on the other hand is that the session benefit is only given to a teacher, who is working in a Government school or in a school, which is under grant-in-aid of the Government. As per the Government Order dated 01.06.2012, the benefit can only be given either to the teacher of Government school or teacher of private school though under grant-in-aid. Campus School Pantnagar does not fall in any of the two categories, as the school is being run by the authorities of G.B. Pant University and is not under any grant-in-aid. 4. Another contention of the petitioner, however, is that even though the Government Order may not be strictly applicable in the school but such benefit was granted to other teachers of the school, namely, Ms. Pramila Drona and Ms. Shashi Sharma. A fact, which is not denied by the respondent in its counter affidavit, and since there is no specific denial, it would be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents that such a benefit has been given to some individuals in the past. In spite of this, however, no benefit can be given to the petitioner, as the case of the petitioner has to be seen on its merit. In spite of this, however, no benefit can be given to the petitioner, as the case of the petitioner has to be seen on its merit. Merely because such a benefit has been given to other persons in the past would not give a right to the petitioner on even an equity in his favour. The same benefit cannot be given to the petitioner as he has not been able to establish his case before this Court that a school where he is presently working is covered under the said Government Order where the benefits of extension of service till the end of academic session can be given. 5. Another fact, which has been taken note of during the course of arguments by this Court, is that the petitioner is a P.T.I. and has not doing classroom teaching. A statement has been given by Mr. Rajendra Dobhal – Senior Advocate that the scheme of session benefit, which is being applicable in Government and aided schools only for the benefit of the students, so that the students may not be deprived of the services of a teacher during mid session. In the present school, another teacher has been selected and since the petitioner is going to retire from service on 31.10.2016, he would be joining in the school from 01.11.2016, therefore, this is also not a case where any harm would be done to the students in their studies in any manner. 6. In view thereof, no interference is liable to be made in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 7. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on the payment of usual charges.