Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 243 (UTT)

Ram Asrey Maurya v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-05-03

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Petitioner before this Court was a Teacher who retired from Government Intermediate College, Audali, Block Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar after reaching his age of superannuation on 30.9.2016. However, on the basis of a Government scheme, he continued to teach in the College till the end of the academic session i.e. till 31.3.2017. 2. Claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he was recommended for a State level award, but the award could not be given to him due to inaction on the part of the State and its Authorities. 3. The State Government admittedly gives an award known as the “Shailesh Matiyani Rajya Puraskar” every year to one teacher of Madhyamik in each District. This Court has been informed that the award carries a cash prize of rupees ten thousand, but what is more important is that as per the Government Order dated 29.8.2005, which has been filed today before this Court by Mr. S.R. Joshi, Standing Counsel for the State, teachers who win this award are liable to get two years of extension in service after they reach their age of superannuation, though this period of service is not liable to be counted for retirement and pensionary benefits. 4. The Government Order dated 29.8.2005, which is not a part of the record, is made part of the record as Annexure ‘A’ to the counter affidavit. 5. For the year 2015, the Directorate of Education published a schedule on 2.6.2016. The schedule is as below:- Sr. No. Name of event Last date 1. Meeting of all Chief Education Officers at the State level with the Director, Madhyamik and the Director, Primary Education June/July, 2016 2. Meeting at the district level under the Chairmanship of Chief Education Officer for nominating teachers for the award 02.7.2016 3. Last date for submitting applications by the nominated teachers in the office of Block Education Officer 14.7.2016 4. Last date for submitting applications at the district level 16.7.2016 5. Physical verification of applications and documents at the district level 20.7.2016 6. Last date for forwarding the recommendations from the district level to the regional level 30.7.2016 7. Meeting of the Regional Selection Committee 02.8.2016 8. Forwarding the cases from the regional level to the State level 10.8.2016 9. Meeting of the State Level Committee 16.8.2016 10. Physical verification of applications and documents at the district level 20.7.2016 6. Last date for forwarding the recommendations from the district level to the regional level 30.7.2016 7. Meeting of the Regional Selection Committee 02.8.2016 8. Forwarding the cases from the regional level to the State level 10.8.2016 9. Meeting of the State Level Committee 16.8.2016 10. Forwarding the proposals by the Directorate to the State Government 18.8.2016 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was nominated by the District Level Committee as one of the teachers to be considered for the “Shailesh Matiyani Rajya Purskar” for the District Udham Singh Nagar. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Lecturer in Civics in the Government Intermediate College in District Udham Singh Nagar, as already stated above. 7. This Court has been informed that three names were shortlisted by the District Level Committee. The name of the petitioner was at the top with 76 marks out of 95 marks. Second one was Mr. Swatantra Kumar Mishra with 70 marks and the third name was of one Mr. Satish Kumar Arora with 61 marks. These marks are given on various scores such as five years of result given by the teacher, number of students who have retained first division, contribution of the teacher in promoting girl child education, etc. 8. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner was awarded highest marks by the District Level Committee. There is nothing on the record nor anything has been mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the State that there is something against the petitioner which disentitles him for the award for which he was nominated. All the same, the authorities of the State Government kept sleeping over the matter and in spite of above schedule, to which the Government was duty bound to adhere to, did not finalize and announced the name of the winner of award as per the said schedule. 9. It has further been informed by the Standing Counsel for the State, under the instructions from the officers of the State, that the State Government has not given the award for the year 2015, 2016 and 2017 as yet. It has further been informed that now for all these three years, the Government proposes to give the award on the Teachers Day in September 2018. 10. It has further been informed that now for all these three years, the Government proposes to give the award on the Teachers Day in September 2018. 10. In the counter affidavit, the objection taken by the State Government for not giving the award to the petitioner is not inaction on their part, but the reason given is that the petitioner is not liable to be considered as of now since he has already reached the age of superannuation and has retired from service. It has further been argued that State Level Committee did meet to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the award but did not give award to the petitioner since by that time, petitioner had already superannuated from the service and though he was teaching in the same college but it was merely on account of extension of service. In this regard, learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the Government Order dated 20.10.2009 which is Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit, wherein one of the conditions is that such persons shall not be considered for the award who have reached the age of superannuation and retired from the service. This is the only reason furnished for not giving the award to the petitioner. 11. The above condition of the respondent State is wholly misplaced inasmuch as according to the schedule given by the Government itself, all the formalities were to be completed by 18.8.2016 when the petitioner was in service. In any case, the award is to be given for the year 2015 and the last calendar date for the year 2015 is 31.12.2015 when the petitioner was already in service. Rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he superannuated from the service on 30.9.2016 is clearly wrong. 12. In any case, the award is to be given for the year 2015 and the last calendar date for the year 2015 is 31.12.2015 when the petitioner was already in service. Rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he superannuated from the service on 30.9.2016 is clearly wrong. 12. This Court would have sent the matter back to the Government for reconsideration but since the Government has taken a categorical stand that the candidature of the petitioner is not liable to be considered at all as he has reached the age of superannuation which is absolutely wrong and, since there is no other objection of the Government for not giving the award to the petitioner and since admittedly the petitioner had secured highest marks and his name was recommended by the District Level Committee and two other names recommended by the Committee have already been rejected on the various grounds, as they were not found suitable, this writ petition is hereby allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent authorities to forthwith give the award to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the Secretary, Education.