Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 317 (UTT)

Brij Bala Dobhal v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-06-15

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is a retired lady of 63 years of age craving for grant of post retiral and pensionary dues which is payable to her as per the Rules. 2. A preliminary objection which has been taken by the counsel for respondent No. 3, Mr. Anirudh Bhatt is that though all the documentations which have been annexed in the writ petition, described the petitioner as to be “Brij Bala Dobhal” but in the writ petition the description has been given as “Brij Bala Sharma”. 3. To this, the response given by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the description as given in writ petition i.e. ‘Brij Bala Sharma’ is a typographical error which has occurred inadvertently as such, he makes an oral prayer that he may be permitted to describe “Brij Bala Sharma” as “Brij Bala Dobhal” and may be permitted to make necessary amendment in the description of the petitioner. 4. This Court feels that the oral prayer made for amendment is innocuous in nature and it does not affect anyone’s right or merits of the writ petition and the same is also not opposed by the respondent. As such, the petitioner is permitted to make the necessary amendment in the writ petition, in all places describing “Brij Bala Dobhal” in place of “Brij Bala Sharma”. The said amendment has to be carried out by the counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day by red ink. 5. Brief case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade-III as back as on 21st July, 1984. Later on, owing to efficient services rendered, she was promoted as Teacher Grade-II on 10th October, 1981 and ultimately as Teacher Grade-I w.e.f. 31st March, 1999. Initially, at the time when the petitioner was appointed in the Institution of respondent No. 3, the institution was not provincialized. However, during the continuance of service of the petitioner, the Institution of respondent No. 3 was ultimately provincialized by the State by issuance of a Government Order dated 7th November, 2003 and, thereafter, it was christened as Government Inter College, IDPL, Veerbhadra Rishikesh as described in the name and style of respondent No. 4. However, during the continuance of service of the petitioner, the Institution of respondent No. 3 was ultimately provincialized by the State by issuance of a Government Order dated 7th November, 2003 and, thereafter, it was christened as Government Inter College, IDPL, Veerbhadra Rishikesh as described in the name and style of respondent No. 4. Ultimately, Director School Education issued an order dated 15.11.2003, based on the G.O. dated 07.11.2003 of provincialization, where he had directed all the Regional Joint Directors of Garhwal and Kumaon Region both Pauri and Nainital to take over school and process may be initiated. The Manager of IDPL, Inter College Veerbhadra Rishikesh transferred employees of IDPL Inter College Veerbhadra Rishikesh, Dehradun to Education Deptt. of Govt. of U.K. vide his letter No. IDP(R)/RER/II/2004/6545 dated 01/09/2004 and the entire movable and immovable assets along with employees, teaching staff were transferred to Education Department on 01/09/2004. A certificate is said to have been issued to the said effect on 01/09/2004. It is the case of the petitioner that her name finds at S.No.26 in the letter dated 01.09.2004. 6. As a consequence of taking over of Institution, all the employees working in the college were taken over by provincialization and were entitled for the benefit which was otherwise was made available under the contributory pension scheme for the purposes of including the services rendered in the institution of respondent No. 3 prior to provincialization. 7. Case of the petitioner is that State had issued a G.O. dated 02.08.2006, whereby, it provided that non-governmental school/degree college, the College where contributory provident fund scheme was applicable and, in which, after some time pension scheme was implemented and employees who are giving their contribution towards contributory fund scheme shall deposit the employees share with interest to the Government treasury, will make them eligible for pension and their services rendered in institution prior to provincialization will be included for the purposes of pensionary benefits. All the teaching and non-teaching employees represented before the competent authorities that they are willing to deposit contribution towards their share in treasury. Consequently, the Principal vide his letter dated 09.01.2007 requested Director, School Education, while forwarding the representation for necessary action. This request was reiterated by the Senior Personal Manager of IDPL on 23.11.2007. This representation, as per the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, included the name of the petitioner. Consequently, the Principal vide his letter dated 09.01.2007 requested Director, School Education, while forwarding the representation for necessary action. This request was reiterated by the Senior Personal Manager of IDPL on 23.11.2007. This representation, as per the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, included the name of the petitioner. Later too, it is the case of the petitioner that she had represented on 16.04.2014 through proper channel to Director General School Education for grant of pensionary benefits. 8. On there being certain anomalies pertaining to the applicability of the contributory pension scheme, the Senior Personnel Manger of the IDPL Inter College, vide his clarification dated 16th April, 2009, had intimated that the school was under the contributory pension scheme was applicable even prior to its provincialization. Both employees and IDPL contributed 10% each over the scheme. On account of the fact that the pensionary benefits was not remitted to the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted his representation on 23rd May, 2006 praying for an appropriate direction for counting the past services rendered in institution prior to provinvialization for purposes of pension, as a result of which, the Director, Education on 1st May, 2012, admitted the fact that since the contributory pension scheme was applicable to IDPL Inter College and as the petitioner was included in it, the petitioner and including such other employees since have not deposited share in the treasury, as such, their services rendered in the grant-in-aid school could not be included. However, under those circumstances, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 25th June, 2013. 9. An identical issue cropped up in Writ Petition No. 1227 of 2012 (S/S), wherein, this Court while considering the controversy, in question, had allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for retiral benefit as per letter dated 2nd August, 2006, within a period of ten weeks from the date of the order. The said order was passed subject to the undertaking given by the petitioners that they are willing to deposit the amount as per their share. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that since the institution stands provincialized, they do not have any stake in the college after provincialization, so any direction issued herewith by today’s judgment, may not be construed to be against them. 10. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that since the institution stands provincialized, they do not have any stake in the college after provincialization, so any direction issued herewith by today’s judgment, may not be construed to be against them. 10. In that eventuality, this judgment directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for pensionary and post retiral benefits in pursuance to the letter of Director and the G.O. dated 2nd August, 2006 would be construed to be against other respondents except respondent No. 3. 11. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition would stand allowed under same terms and conditions as laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 09.03.2018, passed in Writ Petition No. 1227 of 2012 (S/S). However, there would be no order as to costs.