# Indramani Rao v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 430
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-20
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 15439 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indramani-rao-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54579
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -
Sections 16-E(10) & 16G(3)(q) - Pension
- Disciplinary Action - Retired Employee -
Verification of Academic Qualifications -
Third-Party Complaint
The petitioner, Indramani Rao, an Assistant
Teacher who voluntarily retired on 31.03.2022,
challenged
the
orders
dated
05.05.2022,
03.09.2022 (Deputy Director of Education), and
13.09.2022 (District Inspector of Schools)
directing verification of his B.Ed. degree
(Shiksha Alankar, 1991) based on a third-party
complaint, potentially affecting his pension.
Held: (1) The writ petition was allowed, and the
impugned
orders
were
quashed.
(2)
No
provision under the U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921, or its regulations permits disciplinary
action or inquiry into the academic qualifications
of a retired employee, as Sections 16-E(10) and
16G(3)(q) apply only to serving teachers. (3)
The petitioner, having served since 1978 and
retired voluntarily, could not be subjected to
post-retirement inquiry absent specific legal
provisions, rendering such actions futile and
burdensome to the public exchequer. (4) The
petitioner was entitled to exemption from B.Ed.
training under a 1994 Government Order, and
his qualifications were never misrepresented.
(5)
The
third-party
complaint,
previously
dismissed in a related writ petition, lacked merit
to trigger such verification. (6) A mandamus
was issued to clear all post-retiral dues within
one month, with 8% interest for delays beyond
30 days. (7) The Supreme Court's ruling in
Chandra Singh Vs St. of Rajasthan and
coordinate bench decisions reinforced that
disciplinary proceedings cannot continue postretirement without explicit rules.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
year merely because it technically accrues
on the day following his retirement, would
be arbitrary and unreasonable, there is no
option for the Nagar Ayuktbut to notionally
grant the increment. This is what has
been held by the Supreme Court in C.P.
Mundinamani, as also the majority of
the High Courts in the country. In the
face of the holding of the Constitutional
Courts, including the Supreme Court of
India, no Government Order or Rule to
the contrary can be given effect to. It is
not open to the Nagar Ayuktto have
referred to Government Orders in the face
of the law laid down by High Courts
across the country, which at the time the
impugned order was passed, had met with
approval of the Supreme Court, may be
by a summary refusal of leave.

27. The Nagar Ayuktas well as the
State Government are cautioned in the
matter not to act pedantically following
Government Orders on issues that are
governed by judgments of the High Court
or the Supreme Court, rendered after
considering such Government Orders or
Rules holding them to be arbitrary.
Apparently, it seems that the Nagar
Ayukthas thought it safer to go by a
Government Order and seek instructions
from
the
Government,
ignoring
judgments of this Court and the Supreme
Court. This kind of an impression as well
as course of action has to be firmly
discouraged and put down. The impugned
order being clearly one in the teeth of the
consistent law laid down by the High
Courts and finally approved by the
Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani, it
cannot be sustained.

28. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 28.12.2019 passed by the
Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut is
hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to
the respondents to grant annual increment
to the petitioner for the period 01.07.2018
to 30.06.2019 notionally with effect from
01.07.2019. The petitioner's pension
shall be revised accordingly and arrears
of pension paid to the petitioner within a
period of eight weeks of the receipt of a
copy of this judgment, failing which the
arrears will carry simple interest at the
rate of 6% per annum for the period of
delay. A revised Pension Payment Order
shall be issued within the aforesaid
period of time. The petitioner will be
entitled to costs in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- payable by the Nagar Ayukt,
Nagar Nigam, Meerut. It will be open to
the Nagar Nigam, Meerut to recover these
costs from the Nagar Ayuktwho passed
the impugned order.

29.

Let
this
judgment
be
communicated to the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar
Nigam,
Meerut
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 430
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 15439 of 2022

Indramani Rao ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kushmondeya Shahi
4 All. Indramani Rao Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
431
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -
Sections 16-E(10) & 16G(3)(q) - Pension
- Disciplinary Action - Retired Employee -
Verification of Academic Qualifications -
Third-Party Complaint
The petitioner, Indramani Rao, an Assistant
Teacher who voluntarily retired on 31.03.2022,
challenged
the
orders
dated
05.05.2022,
03.09.2022 (Deputy Director of Education), and
13.09.2022 (District Inspector of Schools)
directing verification of his B.Ed. degree
(Shiksha Alankar, 1991) based on a third-party
complaint, potentially affecting his pension.
Held: (1) The writ petition was allowed, and the
impugned
orders
were
quashed.
(2)
No
provision under the U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921, or its regulations permits disciplinary
action or inquiry into the academic qualifications
of a retired employee, as Sections 16-E(10) and
16G(3)(q) apply only to serving teachers. (3)
The petitioner, having served since 1978 and
retired voluntarily, could not be subjected to
post-retirement inquiry absent specific legal
provisions, rendering such actions futile and
burdensome to the public exchequer. (4) The
petitioner was entitled to exemption from B.Ed.
training under a 1994 Government Order, and
his qualifications were never misrepresented.
(5)
The
third-party
complaint,
previously
dismissed in a related writ petition, lacked merit
to trigger such verification. (6) A mandamus
was issued to clear all post-retiral dues within
one month, with 8% interest for delays beyond
30 days. (7) The Supreme Court's ruling in
Chandra Singh Vs St. of Rajasthan and
coordinate bench decisions reinforced that
disciplinary proceedings cannot continue postretirement without explicit rules.

List of Cases cited:

1. Chandra Singh Vs St. of Rajasthan & anr.,

2. JT 2003 (6) SC 20; Ravindra Singh Rathor Vs
District Inspector of Schools, 2003 Lawsuit (All)
950;

3. Bal Krishna Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ-A No. 20488 of 2007 (Allahabad HC,
30.04.2007).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. 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
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. 19.02.1991 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 24.06.1983, 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. 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
4 All. Indramani Rao Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
433
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 vs.
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
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
vs.
District
Inspector of Schools;2003 Lawsuit (All)
950 and Bal Krishna Pandey vs. 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
intoservice 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 05.05.2022 and
03.09.2022 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.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 434
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 15593 of 2019

Shail Kumar Chaube ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Udai Chandani, Sri G.K. Singh (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Krishna Raj Singh Jadaun, Sri Ritvik
Upadhya, Sri Vikram D. Chauhan, Sri V.K.
Upadhya (Sr. Advocate)

A. Service Law - Banaras Hindu University
Act,
1915
-
Central
Civil
Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965 - Rules 11, 14 & 15 - Disciplinary
proceeding - Compulsory retirement -
Working as a Professor in Banaras Hindu
University - Charge of making vulgar
remarks U.P.on the students was leveled -
Earlier, the penalty of 'censure' was
imposed by Executive Council, but later on
U.P.on reference of Vice Chancellor, major
penalty of 'compulsory retirement' was
imposed - Review power of disciplinary
authority was challenged - Held, the
disciplinary authority in the matter of
imposition
of
punishment
after
due
enquiry held, in the absence of provision
to review its decision and to change
penalty from minor to major cannot be
justified and deserves to be quashed -
Original Act, 1915 did not provide for
compulsory
retirement
by
way
of
punishment - Since there is no power
available to review a penalty imposed, it
was beyond competence of Executive
Council of the University to have resisted
its penalty. (Para 6, 8, 21 and 41)

B. Service Law - Banaras Hindu University
Act, 1915 - Statute 31 (d) -CCS Rules,
1965
-
Disciplinary
proceeding
-
Compulsory retirement - No show cause
notice was issued - Effect - Held,
whenever the University proposes to