# Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 403
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-09-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8525 of 2002
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dolly-chhanda-v-chairman-jee-and-40463
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service Law-Pension-petitioner retired
on 31.1.01-retirement benefits with held
for 4 years 3 months without any
justification-Joint Director (Pension) as
well
as
the
D.I.O.S.
found
equally
negligent-During
intervening
period
even provisional pension not given-
direction issued to release entire amount
alongwith 9% interest-the amount of
interest
to
be
recovered
from
the
personal benefit of both the guilty
officers.

Held- Para 13 and 14

In such cases where the officers of the
State Government have failed to perform
their statutory duties, the liability must
be put upon them, to compensate the
petitioner for the hardship and mental
agony suffered by him. The petitioner
has lost four years and three months of
life with dignity and has suffered severe
harassment
and
insult
from
these
officers of his own department.

The
writ
petition
is
consequently
allowed. The petitioner is made entitle
for 9 percent simple interest on the
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
delayed payment of pensionary benefits
which the petitioner could have earned
from this amount if the pensinary
benefits
were
paid
to
him
within
reasonable time. The Joint Director
(Treasury & Pension) Varanasi Region,
Varanasi shall work out this amount of
interest within a period of six weeks,
which shall be recovered from the
salaries of the Joint Director (Treasury &
Pension) Varanasi Region, Varanasi and
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Varanasi
in
equal
proportion.
The
payment shall be realized within six
weeks, and the amount so deducted shall
be paid to the petitioner without any
delay.

## Text

2 All] Ravindra Nath Mishra V. D.I.O.S., Varanasi and another

 403
Singh 2002(7) SCC 258 read with the
circular of the Medical Council of India
dated 15.9.2004 the admission cannot be
granted to the petitioner after expiry of
cut of date, has to be read with the latest
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 2004(23) all India Cases 96,
Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and
others, wherein in practically similar
circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in para 10 has provided as follows:

"The appellant had qualified in the
JEE-2003 but the said academic year is
already over. But for this adopted a
highly technical and rigid attitude and not
with the appellant. We are, therefore, of
the opinion that the appellant should be
given admission in MBBS course in any of
the State medical colleges in the current
academic years.

20. Applying the principle so
provided for by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the facts of the case, the
petitioner had qualified JEE 2004. The
fault for her being not admitted lies with
the respondents, who had adopted an
illegal and unsustainable approach to the,
matter and since the said academic year
has already commenced, it would be fair
to direct that the petitioner should be
given admission in the M.B.B.S. Course
in any of the State Medical colleges in the
current academic session.

21. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed with costs. The respondents are
directed to give admission to the appellant
in any one of the State Medical colleges
forthwith. In case of State seats have
already been filled up, one extra seat shall
be created for her.
Petition Allowed.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.5.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8525 of 2002

Ravindra Nath Misra

...Petitioner
Versus
District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shiv Kumar Pal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.P. Singh
Addl. Chief Standing Counsel

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service Law-Pension-petitioner retired
on 31.1.01-retirement benefits with held
for 4 years 3 months without any
justification-Joint Director (Pension) as
well
as
the
D.I.O.S.
found
equally
negligent-During
intervening
period
even provisional pension not given-
direction issued to release entire amount
alongwith 9% interest-the amount of
interest
to
be
recovered
from
the
personal benefit of both the guilty
officers.

Held- Para 13 and 14

In such cases where the officers of the
State Government have failed to perform
their statutory duties, the liability must
be put upon them, to compensate the
petitioner for the hardship and mental
agony suffered by him. The petitioner
has lost four years and three months of
life with dignity and has suffered severe
harassment
and
insult
from
these
officers of his own department.

The
writ
petition
is
consequently
allowed. The petitioner is made entitle
for 9 percent simple interest on the
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
delayed payment of pensionary benefits
which the petitioner could have earned
from this amount if the pensinary
benefits
were
paid
to
him
within
reasonable time. The Joint Director
(Treasury & Pension) Varanasi Region,
Varanasi shall work out this amount of
interest within a period of six weeks,
which shall be recovered from the
salaries of the Joint Director (Treasury &
Pension) Varanasi Region, Varanasi and
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Varanasi
in
equal
proportion.
The
payment shall be realized within six
weeks, and the amount so deducted shall
be paid to the petitioner without any
delay.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for
petitioner and learned standing counsel.

2. Sri Sanjiv Kumar Singh, District
Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and Dr.
Vimal Shankar Srivastava, Joint Director
(Treasury & Pension), Varanasi Division,
Varanasi, are present in person and have
filed their affidavits in compliance with
the order dated 7.4.2005 by which they
were required to show cause as to why the
interim mandamus dated 4.3.2002, as
confirmed on 5.5.2003, has not been
complied with and the pensionary benefits
were not pad to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was appointed a
clerk in the office of District Inspector of
Schools in the year 1962. He retired on
31.1.2001, while serving as Senior
Assistant clerk in the same office.

4. By this writ petition, filed on
25.2.2002, the petitioner has prayed for
payment
of
retrial
dues,
including
pension,
gratuity,
leave
encashment,
traveling allowance etc.
5. A letter dated 17.4.2001 was
issued by the Joint Director (Treasury &
Pension),
Varanasi
to
the
District
Inspector of Schools, Varanasi calling for
all the records for settlement of the retrial
benefits of the petitioner. By this letter the
District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi
was requested to put his office stamp on
the joint photographs of the petitioner and
his wife, to make entry of the increments
of the year 1994 and 1995 in the service
book and to rectify the discrepancy with
regard to pay scale on 1.1.1996 and the
revised pay scale. The matter was kept
pending for long and no action was taken
by the office of the District Inspector of
Schools, Varanasi.

6. In this writ petition, an interim
mandamus was issued on 4.3.2002 to pay
provisional pension to the petitioner
within two months or to show cause.
Since no counter affidavit was filed, the
interim mandamus was confirmed on
5.5.2003. The respondents, however, did
not make any payment to the petitioner
and thus by the order dated 7.4.2005, both
the concerned officers were called upon to
appear in person before the court along
with their explanations by way of
affidavits.

7. Sri Sanjiv Kumar Singh, CoDistrict Inspector of Schools, Varanasi
has admitted petitioner's appointment and
retirement. It is stated in para 5 of his
counter affidavit that by letter dated
17.2.2001, all the papers for sanction of
pension were submitted to the Joint
Director (Treasury & Pension), Varanasi,
on which he had made the aforesaid
queries for removing the defects vide his
letter dated 17.4.2001. The office of the
District Inspector of Schools resubmitted
the papers to the Joint Director (Treasury
2 All] Ravindra Nath Mishra V. D.I.O.S., Varanasi and another

 405
& Pension), Varanasi on 12.10.2001. The
Joint Director by his letter dated 911.2001
gave a direction for calculation of the
excess amount which were paid to the
petitioner by mistake in fixation of salary
and for deposit of the same by the
petitioner to which the petitioner was
informed on 26.3.2002 to deposit the
amount and reminders were sent to the
petitioner. In para 7 of the counter
affidavit, it is stated that as per the service
rules, the sanction for pension and
commutation has been given on 8.9.2004.
The gratuity was sanctioned but the same
was stopped for want of deposit of the
difference of salary after recalculating the
applicability of the revised pay and that
on 5.4.2004, the payment has been made.
The matter of the payment of provident
fund has been taken up with the
competent authority. With regard to pay
difference and allowances etc. the matter
was also been taken up with the Joint
Director (Treasury & Pension), Varanasi.

8. Dr. Vimal Shanker Srivastava,
Joint Director (Treasury & Pension),
Varanasi Division, Varanasi states in para
3 (ii) of his counter affidavit that on
17.4.2001 his office had raised certain
objections by sending a letter of objection
to the District Inspector of Schools and
thereafter letters were sent as reminder to
remove those objections. It is further
stated that since the objection was not
removed by the department, the payment
of gratuity was stopped whereas the
pension
and
commutation
were
sanctioned vide letter dated 8.9.2004.
Since the release of gratuity was delayed,
the matter, in the meantime, was referred
by the District Inspector of schools,
Varanasi to the Accountant General, UP,
Allahabad where it is still pending.
However, looking into the delay from the
office of the Accountant General, all dues
except an amount of Rs.19,269/- have
been released on 13.4.2005. In para 12 of
the counter affidavit it is stated that vide
letter dated 27.4.2002, the petitioner was
informed by the District Inspector of
Schools, Varanasi to deposit the excess
amount of Rs.34,099/- by treasury challan
and to send a copy whereof to the District
Inspector
of
Schools.
This
amount
apparently is by way of re fixation of pay
on the applicability of the date from
which the revised pay was payable.

9. It has been held by Supreme
Court that post retirement benefits are not
dependent upon the discretion of the
employer. These are not given by way of
any grace or bounty. The petitioner has
statutory right as also fundamental right
under Article 21 of the constitution of
India, to be paid the benefits earned out of
his long service rendered and to get retrial
dues as well as pension immediately upon
his retirement. Time and again, the State
Government
has
been
issuing
Government Orders to the concerned
authorities to deal with the pension
matters expeditiously. It appears that the
department has no sympathy and has
forgotten the retired person on account of
which the pensioner is running from pillar
to post.

10. The present case is the classic
example of gross negligence which has
resulted into great in justice and hardship
to the petitioner. He has been deprived of
his statutory dues and payment of pension
for four years and three months. Inspite of
an interim mandamus issued by this Court
on 4.3.2002, as confirmed on 5.5.2003,
the respondents did not care to take steps
in the matter, and to comply with the
orders.
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
11. I have gone through the reasons
given for delaying the sanction of
pension. These reasons had nothing to do
with the petitioner. The objections, taken
by the office of the Joint Director
(Treasury & Pension) Varanasi Division,
Varanasi, could be removed within few
days. The first objection related to the
stamp of the office of District Inspector of
Schools, the second with regard to the
making of entry about the increments for
the years 1994 and 1995 in the service
book, and the 3rd and 4th objections were
with regard to the applicability of revised
pay scales before they were actually due
to the petitioner and the refixation of pay
in the revised pay scale, which only
required
calculations
to
be
made.
Although, the petitioner has disputed the
correctness of fixation of pay, I am not
inclined to entertain the challenge in this
writ petition as no prayer has been made
to set aside the order. It will be open to
the petitioner to challenge the order by
making an appropriate representation.

12.

The
Court
is,
however,
concerned with the delay caused in the
settlement of pension and disobedience of
the interim mandamus issued on 4.3.2002,
confirmed on 5.5.2003. The Government
Orders issued from time to time, have
provided that even if there is any defe3cts
in the pension papers, the provisional
pension must be paid from the next month
of the retirement. In the present case,
there was no impediment to pay the
provisional pension.

13. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I find that the respondents
were not at all justified in with holding
pensionary benefits for a long period of
four years and three months. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
mean time the petitioner has suffered
severe hardship and mental agony and
was left to survive with his wife at the
mercy of his children. In such cases where
the officers of the State Government have
failed to perform their statutory duties, the
liability must be put upon them, to
compensate the petitioner for the hardship
and mental agony suffered by him. The
petitioner has lost four years and three
months of life with dignity and has
suffered severe harassment and insult
from
these
officers
of
his
own
department.

14. The writ petition is consequently
allowed. The petitioner is made entitle for
9 percent simple interest on the delayed
payment of pensionary benefits which the
petitioner could have earned from this
amount if the pensinary benefits were
paid to him within reasonable time. The
Joint Director (Treasury & Pension)
Varanasi Region, Varanasi shall work out
this amount of interest within a period of
six weeks, which shall be recovered from
the salaries of the Joint Director (Treasury
& Pension) Varanasi Region, Varanasi
and the District Inspector of Schools,
Varanasi
in
equal
proportion.
The
payment shall be realized within six
weeks, and the amount so deducted shall
be paid to the petitioner without any
delay. The pension shall be paid to the
petitioner from 1st may, 2005.

15. The petitioner shall also be
entitled to the costs of this writ petition.
Petition Allowed.
---------
2 All] Sampurnand Sanskrit University V. State of U.P. and others

 407
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29522 of 2004

Sampurnand Sanskrit University, Varanasi
through' Its Registrar
...Petitioner
Versus
State
of
U.P. through
its Principal
Secretary, Basic Education, Lucknow and
others

 ...Respondents

Connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 29092 of
2004, 29207 of 2004, 29208 of 2004,
29210 of 2004, 29212 of 2004, 29215 of
2004, 29217 of 2004, 29221 of 2004,
29236 of 2004, 29436 of 2004, 29523 of
2004, 29524 of 2004, 29545 of 2004,
29549 of 2004, 29621of 2004, 29647 of
2004, 29652 of 2004, 29938 of 2004,
29991 of 2004, 30426 of 2004, 30428 of
2004, 30431 of 2004, 30433 of 2004,
30435 of 2004, 30437 of 2004, 30438 of
2004, 30440 of 2004, 30442 of 2004,
30444 of 2004, 30446 of 2004, 30447 of
2004, 30449 of 2004, 30488 of 2004,
31113 of 2004, 31241 of 2004, 31399 of
2004, 31407 of 2004, 31416 of 2004,
31422 of 2004, 31553 of 2004, 31556 of
2004, 31559 of 2004, 31585 of 2004,
31611 of 2004, 31680 of 2004, 31683 of
2004, 31708 of 2004, 31710 of 2004,
31713 of 2004, 31714 of 2004, 31717 of
2004, 31719 of 2004, 31721 of 2004,
31724 of 2004, 31726 of 2004, 31742 of
2004, 31980 of 2004, 31984 of 2004,
32215 of 2004, 32250 of 2004, 32493 of
2004, 32736 of 2004, 33103 of 2004,
33186 of 2004, 33513 of 2004, 33536 of
2004, 33762 of 2004, 33926 of 2004,
33928 of 2004, 33941 of 2004, 34016 of
2004, 34017 of 2004, 34064 of 2004,
34074 of 2004, 34075 of 2004, 34090 of
2004, 34282 of 2004, 34385 of 2004,
35337 of 2004, 33320 of 2004, 36013 of
2004, 36015 of 2004, 35864 of 2004,
35241 of 2004, 37822 of 2004, 40061 of
2004, 42579 of 2004, 40061 of 2004,
42579 of 2004, 42615 of 2004, 32436 of
2004, 43674 of 2004, 43978 of 2004,
44418 of 2004, 47558 of 2004, 47688 of
2004, 47689 of 2004, 47762 of 2004,
48335 of 2004, 49463 of 2004, 49035 of
2004, 49765 of 2004, 50264 of 2004,
50390 of 2004, 503589 of 2004, 52362 of
2004, 52741 of 2004, 52864 of 2004,
53993 of 2004, 54288 of 2004, 4920 of
2004, 33320 of 2004, 7542 of 2004, 8089
of 2004, and 29326 of 2004.

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Tiwari
Sri Manish Goyal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajiv Gupta
Sri R.S. Parihar
S.C.

National Council Teachers Education Act,
1993-Section 14 (1) whether the course
of
Shiksha
Shashtri
offered
by
Sampurnanad University Varanasi from
the faculty of Education of university and
its affiliated colleges is equivalent to
B.Ed. and are valid qualification?-held-
'yes' upto the year 1995-96 for the year
1996-97 also-in view of the fact the
university had applied but no refusal
communicated-but for 97-98, 1998-99
not valid as the facality of university and
its colleges were not re cognised-again
from the academic year 1999-2000 and
thereafter are valid for the purposes of
pursuing special B.T.C. course.

Held: Para 23 & 24

For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the
course of 'Shiksha Shastri' as equivalent
to B.Ed. officered by Sampurnanand
Sanskrit University, Varanasi, from the
Faculty of Education of the University