Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1038 (ALL)

Ram Pal Singh v. State of U. P.

2024-04-10

J.J.MUNIR

body2024
JUDGMENT : J.J. Munir, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1977 as an Assistant Teacher with the Tagore Vidyalaya, Farrukhabad, an unaided Junior High School at the time. The petitioner's appointment was duly approved by the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad (for short, 'the BSA') vide order dated 25.1.1979. His name figured at serial No. 10 of the approval order made by the BSA. The Tagore Vidyalaya, Farrukhabad was upgraded to a High School in the year 1983 and the institution came to be known as the Tagore Higher Secondary School, Dilawarganj, Farrukhabad. It was recognized under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and fell within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982. The petitioner was promoted to the LT Grade vide order dated 19.8.1994 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad (for short, 'the DIOS'). His name finds place at Sr. No. 6 of the list, set out in the order of the DIOS. The Tagore Higher Secondary School, Dilawarganj, Farrukhabad was extended the Government grant-in-aid vide order dated 8.2.1996, whereupon the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971) became applicable to it. The Institution's name is mentioned at Sr. No. 98 of the order dated 8.2.1996. The services of the teaching and non-teaching employees of the Tagore Higher Secondary School, Dilawarganj, Farrukhabad were accepted vide order dated 27.3.1997, passed by the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, directing payment of their salary by the State under the Act of 1971. The petitioner's name finds place at Sr. No. 7 of the Joint Director's order dated 27.3.1997. 2. It is the petitioner's case that he has been paid salary drawn on the State Exchequer under the Act of 1971, since February, 1996 regularly. In the year 2002, the petitioner was transferred from the Tagore Higher Secondary School, Dilawarganj, Farrukhabad to the National Model Higher Secondary School, Mau Road, Agra vide order dated 21.3.2002, made by the Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. He retired from service on 30.6.2015, upon attaining the age of 62 years. At the time of his retirement, he was holding the post of a LT Grade Teacher in the National Model Higher Secondary School, Agra. At the time of his retirement, he was holding the post of a LT Grade Teacher in the National Model Higher Secondary School, Agra. The petitioner says that since the year 1977 and until his retirement in the year 2015, the petitioner has been consistently working earlier with the Tagore Vidyalaya Junior High School, Dilawarganj, Farrukhabad before its upgradation to a High School and a Higher Secondary School, all unaided institutions, and subsequently with the said institution aided since 8.2.1996. In the final lap of his service, the petitioner served with the National Model Higher Secondary School, Agra, until his retirement. Post retirement, the petitioner's services for the purpose of determination of his pension were reckoned with effect from the year 2002 to 30.6.2015 by the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Agra Region, Agra vide order dated 20.5.2015. 3. The petitioner's services were reckoned since the year 2002, that is to say, the time the petitioner was transferred from the Tagore Higher Secondary School, Dilawarganj, Farrukhabad to the National Model Higher Secondary School, Agra vide order dated 21.3.2002. The petitioner represented his case after retirement to the Education Authorities/respondents with a prayer to take into account the entire length of his service from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1979 to the year 2015 for the purpose of computation of his post retiral benefits and not to limit such consideration to the year 2002. He requested that his pension be re-determined. It is his case that the petitioner's services were substantive, permanent and regular since his initial appointment in the year 1979 with the Tagore Vidyalaya Junior High School, Dilawarganj, Farrukhabad, that was since upgraded to an Intermediate Institution and then recognized and aided as such. It is also emphasized that the petitioner has been paid his salary since the month of February, 1996 under the Act of 1971, borne on State grant until 30.6.2015 i.e. the date of his retirement. The pension paid to the petitioner is governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Aided-Educational Institution Employee's Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Rules of 1964). The petitioner says that he is entitled to his pension under the aforesaid Rules and for the purpose, his service from the year 1979 to 2015 are to be taken into consideration. 4. The pension paid to the petitioner is governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Aided-Educational Institution Employee's Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Rules of 1964). The petitioner says that he is entitled to his pension under the aforesaid Rules and for the purpose, his service from the year 1979 to 2015 are to be taken into consideration. 4. It is averred in paragraph No. 19 of the writ petition that while in the earlier Institution, that is to say, the Tagore Higher Secondary School, the petitioner's GPF was deducted for some months alone, and he is ready to deposit the entire GPF contribution with interest for the period, for which the same was not deducted. It is pleaded in paragraph No. 20 of the writ petition that the scheme for provision of pension is a beneficial scheme for the teachers and non-teaching staff of an aided institution. It is emphasized that the State's interest is fully protected, as the Management's contribution is to be deposited alongwith interest, to take in the relevant period of service into reckoning for the purpose of pension. In the circumstances, the State Government had to give opportunity to teachers and other staff to avail the benefit of pension scheme by depositing the Management's contribution alongwith interest. 5. It is asserted in paragraph No. 22 that the petitioner is ready to deposit the Management's contribution with interest for the period 1979 up to the year 2002, to wit, the period for which it has not been deposited. The fixation of pension for the petitioner and other post retiral dues was made vide order dated 28.5.2015 passed by the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Agra Region, Agra, reckoning it on the basis of the period 2002 to 2015. 6. Aggrieved by the order to the extent that it eliminates the period from the year 1979 to the year 2002 from consideration for the purpose of working out the petitioner's pension and other post retiral benefits, this writ petition has been instituted. 7. Notice pending admission was issued on 16.12.2015, in response to which a counter-affidavit dated 28.4.2017 was filed on behalf of the DIOS. This was followed by a counter-affidavit dated 18.8.2018 on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, that is to say, the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Agra Region, Agra and the DIOS. 7. Notice pending admission was issued on 16.12.2015, in response to which a counter-affidavit dated 28.4.2017 was filed on behalf of the DIOS. This was followed by a counter-affidavit dated 18.8.2018 on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, that is to say, the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Agra Region, Agra and the DIOS. A single rejoinder-affidavit dated 15.11.2021 has been filed in answer to both the counter-affidavits. 8. On 21.9.2023 hearing commenced and was adjourned to 12.10.2023. On 12.10.2023, hearing concluded and judgment was reserved. 9. Heard Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. D. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 10. It is submitted by Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner that whereas the petitioner has rendered service from 1977 to 2015, a period of almost 38 years, the entire period has not been taken into reckoning for the purpose of fixation of his pension and other retiral benefits. It is emphasized that promptly after the pension payment order dated 28.5.2015 was passed, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition in the month of December, 2015. It is an action brought without any delay, much less a culpable and disentitling one. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents in their counter-affidavits dated 28.4.2017 and 18.8.2018 have founded their objection on a Government Order dated 24.4.2001, where the last date for an extended deposit of the Management's share to the Contributory Provident Fund was fixed as 31.3.2002. It is urged that the petitioner was not put to notice of the said order, or granted an opportunity of hearing before fixing the petitioner's pension. The petitioner has challenged the Government Order dated 24.4.2001 through an amendment application dated 14.11.2021, which in due course has been allowed in the year 2022 and the amendments incorporated. 11. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that his total period of service from the year 1977 to 2015 is 38 years. Reckoned from the date of approval, i.e. the year 1979 to 2015, it is almost 36 years. If determined with reference to the time of his promotion to the LT Grade, that is to say, since the year 1994 to 2015, it is almost 21 years. Reckoned from the date of approval, i.e. the year 1979 to 2015, it is almost 36 years. If determined with reference to the time of his promotion to the LT Grade, that is to say, since the year 1994 to 2015, it is almost 21 years. However, if the period of the petitioner's service is reckoned from the date that the Institution, he was serving, was brought under grant-in-aid, the period from 1996 to 2015, it is approximately 19 years. In support of his contention that the entire period of service is to be reckoned for the purpose of determining his pension and other retirement benefits, the petitioner relies upon an unreported decision of this Court in Thakur Prasad v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Food and others, 2009 AHC 12758; a Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies and others v. Thakur Prasad, 2019 AHC 85883 DB (Special Appeal No. 717 of 2010) and, the authority of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2019) 10 SCC 516 . 12. Mr. R.D. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has urged that the Tagore Higher Secondary School was extended Government grant-in-aid in April, 1996, whereas the petitioner worked with the said Institution since 1.7.1977 to 20.5.2002. The petitioner claims his service from year 1979 to 2002 to be included for the purpose of computation of his pension and other post retiral benefits. He points out that for the purpose of counting the service of those teaching and non-teaching staff, who served in an unaided institution, that was subsequently extended aid, a Government Order dated 24.4.2001 was issued extending the facility for deposit of the Management's contribution alongwith interest by the end of the financial year 2001-02, that is to say, 31.3.2002. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid Government Order by an amendment brought in the year 2021. That part of the challenge, according to the learned Standing Counsel, is highly belated. 13. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid Government Order by an amendment brought in the year 2021. That part of the challenge, according to the learned Standing Counsel, is highly belated. 13. The learned Standing Counsel has relied upon Radhey Shyam Garg v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, 2010 SCC Online Del 1118 and State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai, 2002 SCC Online Ker 154, in support of the principle that a person, who does not diligently prosecute his cause, cannot claim any monetary benefit from an earlier date. He submits that fixing the cut-off date for extension of the benefit for reckoning that period of service, for which the Management had not contributed to the provident fund, a cut-off date has been stipulated by the Government Order dated 24.4.2001. According to the learned Standing Counsel, it is a one-time measure founded on a policy decision of the Government. It can be judicially reviewed, if it violates a fundamental right; not otherwise. In support of his contention on this point, Mr. R.D. Mishra has placed reliance upon Mohammad Ali Imam and others v. State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary and others, (2020) 5 SCC 685 and an authority of the Gauhati High Court in Biraj Choudhury and others v. State of Assam and others, 2012 SCC Online Gau 827. 14. It is submitted that it is by now a settled principle that a cut-off date fixed, if judicially reviewed, would have an unsettling effect, opening a floodgate of similar claims which would cause immense financial burden to the exchequer. It is also pointed out by Mr. Mishra that the petitioner's pension contribution has been calculated for the period 2002 till his retirement in the year 2015. In paragraph No. 19 of the writ petition, the petitioner admits that the GPF deduction was made only for some months in the year 1996, when the institution, that he was serving at that time, was extended grant-in-aid. 15. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for both parties and perused the record. 16. The right to receive pension in Private State Aided-educational Institution is governed by the Rules of 1964. Rules 17, 18 and 19, put together, constitute the gamut of provisions governing various facets of the entitlement to receive pension, quantum etc. Rules17, 18 and 19 of the Rules of 1964 read: “17. 16. The right to receive pension in Private State Aided-educational Institution is governed by the Rules of 1964. Rules 17, 18 and 19, put together, constitute the gamut of provisions governing various facets of the entitlement to receive pension, quantum etc. Rules17, 18 and 19 of the Rules of 1964 read: “17. An employee shall be eligible for pension on: (i) retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or on the expiry of extension granted beyond the superannuation age. (ii) voluntary retirement after completing 25 years of qualifying services; (iii) retirement before the age of superannuation under a medical certificate of permanent incapacity for further service; (iv) discharge due to abolition of post or closure of an institution due to withdrawal of recognition or other valid causes. Note: (1) The age of compulsory retirement of an employee shall be such a prescribed in the relevant rules applicable to him. The date of superannuation shall be reckoned from the date of birth of an employee as entered in his Service Book or other records. In case the year of birth only is known, but not the month, the first July of the year shall be taken as the date of birth, similarly when both the year and the month of birth are known, but not the date, the 16th of the month shall be taken as the date of birth. (2) An employee may retire from service voluntarily any time after completing 25 years of qualifying service, provided that he shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the management at least 3 months before the date on which he wishes to retire. 18. The amount of pension that may be granted shall be determined by the length of qualifying service, vide Rule 31 below. Fractions of a year shall not be taken into account in the calculation of pension under these rules. Pension shall be calculated to the nearest multiple to 5 paise: (a) The full pension admissible under these rules will not be sanctioned unless the service rendered has been considered satisfactory and is approved by the Controlling Authority. (b) If the service has been thoroughly satisfactory the authority sanctioning the pension may order such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. 19...... (a) Service will not count for pension unless the employee holds a substantive post on a permanent establishment. (b) If the service has been thoroughly satisfactory the authority sanctioning the pension may order such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. 19...... (a) Service will not count for pension unless the employee holds a substantive post on a permanent establishment. (b) Continuous temporary or officiating service followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall also count as qualifying service. (See also C.S.R. Para 422). (c) Leave without allowance, suspension allowed to stand as a specific penalty, overstayed of joining time or leave not subsequently regularised, and period of breaks in service shall not be reckoned as qualifying service. (d) Period of breaks between 2 periods of service due to termination of service, for no fault of the employee shall not be treated as interruption involving forfeiture of post qualifying service. In other cases breaks due to other causes shall result in forfeiture of past service unless condoned by Government. (e) Time passed on earned leave shall fully count as qualifying service, but time passed on other kinds leave with allowances shall count as qualifying service as follows: (i) If the total service is not less than 13 years, but less than 30 years, one year of such leave shall count as qualifying service; (ii) If the total service is not less than 30 years, two years of such leave shall counts as qualifying service. Notes: (1) The term 'Earned Leave' means leave on full average pay. (2) In case of a married woman employee time passed on maternity leave may be allowed to count as qualifying service, provided that the period covered by such leave and also earned leave shall not exceed what: would have been admissible had she availed of the whole of the earned leave to which she was entitled under the rules. (3) 'Total Service' means total service rekoning from the date of commencement of service qualifying for pension and includes periods of leave referred to above. (4) The service put in by an employee before he has completed 18 years of age or after attaining the age of superannuation unless extended by competent authority or on re-employment after retirement shall not qualify for pension. (5) The entry relating to confirmation of an employee in the service book shall be countersigned. (4) The service put in by an employee before he has completed 18 years of age or after attaining the age of superannuation unless extended by competent authority or on re-employment after retirement shall not qualify for pension. (5) The entry relating to confirmation of an employee in the service book shall be countersigned. (6) In cases not covered by these rules qualifying service shall be determined by Government and its decision shall be final.” 17. The Rules of 1964 govern the rights of employees, who are working in Private State Aided-educational Institutions. The issue here is about the entitlement of the petitioner to reckon his services for the purpose of pension while the Tagore Vidyalaya Junior High School, Dilawarganj, Farrukhabad, or for that matter, the Tagore Higher Secondary School, Dilawarganj, Farrukhabad, that he was serving since 1.7.1977, was still unaided. Admittedly, the Tagore Higher Secondary School was extended grant-in-aid under the Act of 1971, since the month of February, 1996. Until that time, it was an unaided institution. The petitioner was transferred to the National Model Higher Secondary School, Mau Road, Agra on 21.3.2002. So far as the entitlement of the petitioner to reckon the period of service for the fixation of his pension since the Tagore Higher Secondary School was extended grant-in-aid in the month of February, 1996, should have posed no problem and counted towards the petitioner's length of qualifying service under the Rules of 1964 for the fixation of his pension. The only issue ought to have been limited to the period of time when the Tagore Higher Secondary School, or its predecessor, the Tagore Vidyalaya Junior High School, were unaided institutions. 18. The petitioner, however, has another difficulty to encounter. While the petitioner was employed with the Tagore Higher Secondary School, post extension of grant-in-aid, there appears to be negligible and indifferent contribution by the Management to the General Provident Fund or the Contributory Provident Fund, on the foot of which alone under the Rules, the period of service counts as qualifying service under the Rules of 1964 for the purpose of determining the quantum of pension. The Management's contribution for the petitioner appears to have commenced since the month of May, 2002, after he joined the National Model Higher Secondary School, Agra. It is on that basis that the petitioner's pension was fixed for the period May, 2002 until his retirement on 30.6.2015. The Management's contribution for the petitioner appears to have commenced since the month of May, 2002, after he joined the National Model Higher Secondary School, Agra. It is on that basis that the petitioner's pension was fixed for the period May, 2002 until his retirement on 30.6.2015. The petitioner was not paid any pension for the period of his service from 1.7.1977 to 20.5.2002. 19. Relying on a provision for determining pension under the Sixth Pay Commission, on the basis of 30-half yearly periods of time, instead of 26, as earlier envisaged, the petitioner's pension has been revised from Rs. 7969/- to Rs. 9195/-. A revised pension payment order dated 30.8.2017 has been issued by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra, favouring the petitioner, which is on record. The issue if the petitioner could claim pension for the period of his service rendered in the Tagore Vidyalaya Junior High School and Tagore Higher Secondary School, before these were aided in the year 1996, or for the period post aid, when the Management's contribution was not deposited, either in the petitioner's GPF or CPF Account, is answered by the law laid down by this Court in Buddhiram v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (1) ADJ 254 . In Buddhiram (supra), it has been held: “14. As provision of Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund, Insurance Pension Rule 1964 has been covering only those institutions and employees who were permanent in the State aided educational institution and as various institutions were being included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government then issues have been raised qua clubbing the services rendered by incumbents at the point of time when the institution was unaided. In this regard repeated demands were being made from the State Government for extending the benefit of aforesaid service for computing the qualifying service for pension. In this regard repeated demands were being made from the State Government for extending the benefit of aforesaid service for computing the qualifying service for pension. State Government proceeded to consider the request of said category of teachers and in furtherance of Government Orders dated 10.3.1978 and 31.3.1982 State Government proceeded to issue Government Order dated 23.5.1998 mentioning therein that in continuance of the Government Order dated 10.3.1978 and 31.3.1982, period which has been spent by incumbent in the institution prior to institution being included in grant-in-aid list, said period of service shall also be clubbed but condition was attached therein that who have attained the age of superannuation will have to pay contribution in Contributory Provident Fund alongwith interest. Said amount in question was required to be deposited in Contributory Provident Fund and further it was mentioned that even incumbents who have died, said benefit in question shall be extended to them also. By means of Government Order dated 23.5.1998 time frame has been provided for upto 31.3.1998 for the said amount in question to be deposited in the Government treasury. Obligation has been cast upon the Management through Principal that in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff after computation being made the managerial contribution alongwith the interest, be deposited in the office of District Basic Education Officer. It was also mentioned that thereafter entry shall be made in the service book. It was also clarified that for pension/family pension, said service would be computed from the date when he has been lawfully appointed and it was also clarified that this Government Order dated 23.5.1998 shall be applicable to the incumbent who have retired after aforesaid date i.e. 23.5.1998. 15. Thereafter said Government Order in question has again been considered in Government Order dated 17.2.1999, wherein period which has been fixed for depositing managerial contribution upto 30.9.1998 same has been extended up to 30.7.1999 and it was also clarified and directed that for availing benefit of aforesaid Government Order, all the institutions should get said contribution deposited in time with the Government Treasury. 16. 16. State Government again issued Government Order dated 15.7.1999 for fixing salary of teachers and other employee of Junior High School and as per the same it was clearly provided that institutions which are included in the grant-in-aid list at the said point of time, increment shall be admissible from the date when they have been validly appointed in the institution concerned as per the provision as contained under U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (JHS) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules 1978 and the way and manner salary was to be fixed has also been provided for. Thereafter it appears that State Government once again issued Government Order dated 26.7.2001 and period for depositing Managements contribution has been extended from 30.6.1999 up to 31.3.2002. 17. By means of Government Order dated 26.7.2001 cut of (sic) date for depositing the managerial contribution has been fixed upto 31.3.2002 and at the said point of time, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75746 of 2005 (Smt. Shanti Solanki v. State of U.P. and others) has been filed and challenge was made therein that said cut of date as has been fixed to deposit management contribution together with interest upto 31.3.2002 is arbitrary and unreasonable. This Court on 6.9.2006 has held that said cut of date as 31.3.2002 is wholly arbitrary and has no nexus viz-a-viz the shence (sic) mentioned therein. This Court has also proceeded to mention that cut of date as has been mentioned in the Government Order dated 26.7.2001 fixing 31.3.2002 as the last date for deposit of management's contribution has already been struck down and accordingly management's contribution alongwith interest is deposited within a period of six weeks from today and if the amount, as directed above, is paid, the respondents shall extend the benefit of aforesaid Government Order to petitioner also subject to fulfillment of other terms and conditions of the scheme. Relevant extract of the said judgment is being extracted below: As the allegations made in the writ petition have not been denied and no justification for fixing the cut-off date as 31.3.2002 has been given, the Court is left with no other option but to quash that part of the Government Order dated 26.7.2001 which fixes 31.3.2002 as the last date for deposit of the management's contribution together with interest. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and in case the petitioner deposits the management contribution together with interest within a period of six weeks, the respondents shall extend the benefit of the said Government Order to the petitioner within a further period of six weeks.” 20. The issue was again considered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. through Secretary, Secondary Education and others v. Mangali Prasad Verma and others, Special Appeal Defective No. 678 of 2013, decided on 13.9.2017. Mangali Prasad Verma (supra) was a case, which related to an Assistant Teacher in the Primary Section of a Junior High School, that was subsequently upgraded to a High School and finally as an Intermediate College. It was all along unaided. Mangali Prasad Verma had been appointed in the year 1961 and the upgraded institution was extended grant-in-aid on 6.9.1989 w.e.f. 1.10.1989. He retired on 30th June, 1995. The case of Mangali Prasad Verma was that his services rendered during the period 1961 to 1989, when the institution was unaided, ought to be counted, for the purpose of fixing his pension and that he may be permitted to deposit the Management's contribution in terms of the Government Order dated 26.7.2001. The Court noticed that the cut-off date mentioned in the Government Order dated 26.7.2001 for making good the deposit in the Provident Fund Account to avail the benefit of services rendered during period of time when the institution was unaided, was held arbitrary in Smt. Shanti Solanki v. State of U.P. Writ Petition No. 75746 of 2005, decided on 6.9.2006. Their Lordships of the Division Bench in Mangali Prasad Verma proceeded to observe: “The only issues which survives for consideration is as to whether the services rendered by the petitioner at the time when the institution was unaided i.e. between 1961 to 1989 are to be counted for determination of the qualifying service for determination of final pension or not. As already noticed above the State Government itself came out with a Government order dated 26.7.2001 providing for such services rendered at the time when the institution was unaided to be taken into account for the purposes of computation of qualifying service for the purpose of pension subject, however, to the deposit of the management contribution. As already noticed above the State Government itself came out with a Government order dated 26.7.2001 providing for such services rendered at the time when the institution was unaided to be taken into account for the purposes of computation of qualifying service for the purpose of pension subject, however, to the deposit of the management contribution. The cut off date mentioned for the purpose i.e. 31st March, 2002 has already been struck down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shanti Solanki (supra) and Buddhiram (supra) which judgment stands affirmed with the dismissal of the Special Appeal filed against the same. The net consequence is that all such teachers like the petitioner who had been working in aided institution prior to their retirement become entitle for addition of the services rendered at the time when the institution was unaided for computation of qualifying service subject to the deposit of the management contribution. We are in agreement with the judgment and order of the learned Single which has permitted the writ petitioner to deposit the management contribution. On satisfaction of the said condition services rendered by Mangali Prasad Verma for the period 1961 to 1989 have to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose determination of the pension. There is no legality in the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in that regard.” 21. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner has urged a belated claim cannot be countenanced, because he has instituted this writ petition on 14.12.2015, soon after his retirement on 30.6.2015. The fact that he did not deposit the Management's contribution in terms of the cut-off date, as last extended up to 31.3.2002 vide Government Order dated 26.7.2001 is besides the point, because the said cut-off dated has already been struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable by this Court in Smt. Shanti Solanki (supra). The Division Bench in Mangali Prasad Verma has held that the cut-off date being struck down in Smt. Shanti Solanki, all teachers like the petitioner, who have been working in aided institutions prior to their retirement, are entitled to the addition of their services rendered during time when the institution was unaided for the purpose of reckoning their qualifying service, subject to deposit of the Management's contribution. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay in the processes of law as this writ petition has remained pending for almost nine years, for the principle is well-known and expressed in the reputed maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit. 22. The last submission advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (for short, 'the Act of 2021'), that has been enacted much later, would exclude applicability of the Rules 1964 to the petitioner's claim, is not tenable at all. This issue fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Surendra Singh and another, 2023 (6) ADJ 670 (DB), where repelling a similar submission, the Division Bench held: “46. We may further note that the Rules, 1964 are special provisions applicable to the teachers and non-teaching employees serving in State Aided Educational Institutions in the State of U.P. The general provisions of U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 defining the term 'qualifying service' in U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 w.e.f 1.4.1961, applicable to 'officers' defined in Rule 3(6) of the Rules, 1961, which means the Government servant having a lien on permanent pensionable post under “the Government,” would not be applicable to the writ petitioners. All the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General to challenge the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 30.9.2022 in Nand Lal (supra), subject-matter of challenge in connected special appeals are found without any force.” 23. This principle is clear that the Act of 2021, or for that matter, the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 (for short, 'the Rules of 1961'), to which the Act of 2021 applies, are not attracted in the case of teachers of Private State Aided-educational Institutions, whose rights are governed by the Rules of 1964; not the Rules of 1961. 24. Before parting with the matter, it is necessary to advert to the challenge, which the petitioner has laid through an amendment to the validity of a Government Order dated 24.4.2001 about the cut-off date for depositing the Management's contribution being the end of the financial year 2001-02. The said Government Order is identical to the Government Order dated 26.7.2001, which has already been quashed by this Court as arbitrary in Smt. Shanti Solanki. The said Government Order is identical to the Government Order dated 26.7.2001, which has already been quashed by this Court as arbitrary in Smt. Shanti Solanki. The challenge is, therefore, superfluous and need not detain this Court to spare attention to it while rendering judgment. 25. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.5.2015 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra, declining to include the petitioner's service for the period 1979 to 2002, is quashed. A mandamus is issued to reckon the petitioner's entire length of service from 1979 to 2015 for the purpose of fixing his pension, subject to the petitioner depositing the Management's contribution together with interest in the General Provident Fund or the Contributory Provident Fund Account, as the case may be, in accordance with Rules within a period of three months of date. The respondents are further commanded to revise the petitioner's pension, subject to the petitioner fulfilling the condition of depositing the Management's contribution. 26. There shall be no order as to costs.