Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 529 (ALL)

Indramani Rao v. State of U. P.

2024-02-20

AJIT KUMAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.-Heard Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by notice dated 13th September, 2022, issued by District Inspector of Schools questioning his B-Ed. degree furnished by him at the time of his initial appointment in the institution in the year 1978 as Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in junior high school. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher C.T. grade on 1st July, 1978. Later on, the institution was upgraded as high school in the year 1985 and on 30th March, 1983 by means of a Government Order, the institution was brought on grant-in-aid list. Since, the petitioner's name was there and the institution was brought on grant-in-aid upto junior high school, it was also brought on grant-in-aid list on 8th February, 1996 and the provisions of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, was made applicable, w.e.f., 1st April, 1996. Petitioner's name figured both at the level of junior high school and when the institution was brought on grant-in-aid as high schools and the petitioner continued to receive salary. Subsequently, since the institution had been recognized upto high school and was also brought on grant-in-aid and C.T. grade got declared a dying cadre under the Government Order issued in the year 1999, the petitioner, who continued to work as Assistant Teacher was automatically accorded with the status of Assistant Teacher L.T. grade. Petitioner seems to have also acquired B.Ed. degree of Shiksha Alankar from Rashtriya Patrachar Sanasthan, Kanpur in the year 1991. It is pleaded in the writ petition that since the Government Order was also issued for granting exemption from training to the teachers, who were untrained teachers, petitioner would also be entitled for exemption from training of B.Ed., in the event Shiksha Alankar degree were not be taken at par with the B.Ed. The petitioner's pay fixation had also been done by the District Inspector of Schools under order dated 10.10.2005 w.e.f. 19.2.1991 and the petitioner has been granted annual increments accordingly and further selection grade and pay fixation as per 7th pay commission recommendations. The petitioner's pay fixation had also been done by the District Inspector of Schools under order dated 10.10.2005 w.e.f. 19.2.1991 and the petitioner has been granted annual increments accordingly and further selection grade and pay fixation as per 7th pay commission recommendations. Since as per the date of birth recorded in the service book of the petitioner, he was to retire on 30.4.2022 but for his personal problems he made an application to the Manager for voluntary retirement from the institution on 30.10.2021, the Committee of Management adopted a resolution on 31.10.2021 accepting the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. In view of the provisions as contained under the Government Order dated 24.6.1983, the District Inspector of Schools Siddharth Nagar, approved the resolution of Committee of Management under his order dated 20th January, 2022 and petitioner stood retired voluntarily, w.e.f., 31st March, 2022. Upon his retirement petitioner has also been paid GPF, group insurance gratuity etc. Since he was also entitled to pension, so the papers were also forwarded by the Committee of Management for the said purpose, however, in the meanwhile it appears, on account of some village rivalry, one private person, namely, Brijesh Pratap Rao, who was envious of him made a complaint against the petitioner regarding his B.Ed. degree. Taking cognizance upon a third party complaint, the Deputy Director of Education vide letter dated 5.5.2022 and 3.9.2022, directed for verification of the B.Ed. degree of the petitioner and if found not correct then for lodging of F.I.R. against him and this is how a consequential order has come to be passed by District Inspector of Schools. 4. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has finally retired from service now at the time of his claim for pension, his original qualification while working as an employee, cannot be gone into. He is no more a member of service and pension is his statutory right for the service, which he has already rendered with the department, inasmuch, he having never concealed material facts regarding his academic documents submitted with the authorities, he cannot be said to have mis-representated at all. Insofar as, the B.Ed. He is no more a member of service and pension is his statutory right for the service, which he has already rendered with the department, inasmuch, he having never concealed material facts regarding his academic documents submitted with the authorities, he cannot be said to have mis-representated at all. Insofar as, the B.Ed. degree is concerned, it is submitted that through out he has shown the degree of Shiksha Alankar obtained from a institute, which according to him, he had obtained bonafidely, however, even if, that degree was not admissible, technically he stood exempted from training on account of Government Order issued by the State Government. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents submits that there was no harm in the verification being done but he could not demonstrate any relevant provisions in the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which provide for scrutiny in appointment of a retired employee. He could not show any provision that empowers the authorities to take any disciplinary action against a retired employee. Learned Standing Counsel also could not dispute that under the relevant Government Order dated 21.10.1994, the petitioner would have been entitled to exemption from training. He also could not dispute the fact that it was a third party complaint upon which, the authorities have acted. One more factor also important to notice is that the writ petition was filed by Brijesh Pratap Rao being Writ-A No. 6179 of 2022, questioning the appointment of the petitioner and seeking a writ in the nature of quo warranto, was got dismissed as withdrawn on 25.4.2022. 6. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, in my considered view, once the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation as he has admittedly been granted voluntary retirement under the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 20th January, 2022, there remained no occasion now for the Education authorities to have gone into the verification of the academic records of petitioner so as to deny him pension and that too upon a third party private complaint more especially when the writ petition filed by the third party questioning the appointment of the petitioner, had been dismissed on 26.4.2022. The relevant provisions under the Intermediate Education Act, 1961 wherein the power could have been exercised to question the appointment in Section 6-E (10) of the Intermediate Education Act, but power is to be exercised only in respect of head of the institution and teachers, who are in service. The punishments that are required to be imposed under Section 16G (3) (q) are meant only in respect of working teachers. The regulations that have been framed for the purpose of enquiry/disciplinary proceedings are also in respect of teachers and employees working in the institution. Nothing has been pointed out at the instance of learned Standing Counsel that any of the regulations provides for any disciplinary action against a retired employee. All that is written is vide regulation 30, 35 relates to employees working. Thus, in my considered view in the absence of any provisions to undertake a disciplinary proceeding in respect of retired employee, no action can be taken. If any such enquiry is held into the academic record of such teacher, like the petitioner, it would all lead to a futile exercise burdening the public exchequer additionally. In matters of service, there is a contract of employment, which ends with the employee retiring from service unless the rules permit departmental enquiry or action against employees even after their retirement for a certain period of time. This Court as well as Supreme Court has repeatedly held that legality of appointment should not be questioned after a lapse of substantial period of time. 7. In the case of Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another; JT 2003 (6) SC 20, vide paragraph-37, the Supreme Court has held thus:- 37..... A departmental proceeding can continue so long as the employee is in service. In the event, a disciplinary proceeding is kept pending by the employer the employee cannot be made to retire. There must exist specific provision in the pension rules in terms whereof, whole or a part of the pension can be withheld or withdrawn wherefor a proceeding has to be initiated. Further more, no rule has also been brought to our notice providing for continuation of such proceeding despite permitting the employee concerned to retire. In absence of such a proceeding, the High Court or the State cannot contend that the departmental proceedings against the appellant Mata Deen Garg could continue'' 8. Further more, no rule has also been brought to our notice providing for continuation of such proceeding despite permitting the employee concerned to retire. In absence of such a proceeding, the High Court or the State cannot contend that the departmental proceedings against the appellant Mata Deen Garg could continue'' 8. This judgment has been subsequently followed by two Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Ravindra Singh Rathor v. District Inspector of Schools; 2003 Lawsuit (All) 950 and Bal Krishna Pandey v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ-A No. 20488 of 2007 decided on 30th April, 2007. 9. Beside the above learned Standing Counsel has not been able to show any Government order or any law that entitles the State to withhold and deny pension to a retired employee by embarking upon an enquiry into the qualification of a retired teacher at the time of his or her entry into service decades ago. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 11. The order passed by Deputy Director of Education dated 5.5.2022 and 3.9.2022 as well as the consequential order dated 13th September, 2022 passed by District Inspector of Schools, are, accordingly, hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to clear all post retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of one month of production of certified copy of this order, failing which respondents shall have to pay interest @ 8% for the period payment is delayed beyond 30 days as prescribed above.