# Prasad v. State of UP and others Civil

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1188
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-11-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11111 of 1996
- **Bench:** F.I. Rebello, C.J. Sunil Ambwani, Dilip Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prasad-v-state-of-up-and-others-civil-41746
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art 226-Benefit of
academic session -Petitioner working as
Professor-in C.P.I.-whether entitled to a
benefit of academic session-held-'No'.

Held: Para 23

The questions posed by us, arising out
of
two
decisions
with
conflicting
opinions,
are
thus
answered
as
follows:-

"1.
The
Government
Order
dated
21.3.1984
granting
extension
of
service to the Teachers, Headmasters
and Principals of Government Colleges
and Government Degree Colleges, till
the end of the academic session i.e.
30th June of the year in which such
Teacher,
Headmaster
or
Principals
retire,
is
not
applicable
to
the
employees
including
Professors
working
in
Central
Paedological
Institute, Allahabad (CPI).

## Text

1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
today along with a certified copy of this
order. On deposit of cost, learned Addl.
Sessions Judge shall fix a date for crossexamination of P.W.1 Smt. Amlawati, P.W.3
Neetu and P.W.5 Dr. Harish Chandra and on
such date these three witnesses shall be
summoned and the defence shall be given an
opportunity for cross-examination of these
three witnesses. However, no adjournment
shall be granted to the accused persons for
the purpose of cross-examination of P.W.1,
P.W.3 & P.W.5. Thereafter, the case shall
proceed in accordance with law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE F.I. REBELLO, C.J.
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11111 of 1996

Smt. Sumitra Dhuliya

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Director of Education and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Kant Shukla
Sri Shashi Kant Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art 226-Benefit of
academic session -Petitioner working as
Professor-in C.P.I.-whether entitled to a
benefit of academic session-held-'No'.

Held: Para 23

The questions posed by us, arising out
of
two
decisions
with
conflicting
opinions,
are
thus
answered
as
follows:-

"1.
The
Government
Order
dated
21.3.1984
granting
extension
of
service to the Teachers, Headmasters
and Principals of Government Colleges
and Government Degree Colleges, till
the end of the academic session i.e.
30th June of the year in which such
Teacher,
Headmaster
or
Principals
retire,
is
not
applicable
to
the
employees
including
Professors
working
in
Central
Paedological
Institute, Allahabad (CPI).

2. The judgment in Rajpati Pandey vs.
State of UP and others in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition
No.
20756
of
1990
dated
2.5.1997, was not correctly decided;

3. The Division Bench judgment in Sarju
Prasad vs. State of UP and others Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 896 of 1967
decided on 14.03.1997, lays down the
correct law;"
Case law discussed:
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 896 of 1967, Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 20756 of 1990, AIR
1964 SC 600, AIR 1957 SC 892, AIR 1962 All
328 (FB), AIR 1973 SC 1252, AIR 1965 SC
1567, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and
others vs. Jag Mohan Lal 1989 Supp 1 SCC
221.

(Delivered by Hon'ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.)

1. Smt. Sumitra Dhuliya served on
the
post
of
Professor
in
Central
Paedological Institute, Allahabad ( in short,
'CPI, Allahabad), upto the age of 58 years,
and
retired
on
superannuation
on
31.3.1996.
She
claimed
benefit
of
Government
Order
dated
21.3.1984,
providing that those teachers, who are
engaged in teaching in Government
institutions, will be entitled to continue till
the end of the academic session i.e. 30th
June of the year during which they are
going to retire, if their date of birth falls
between 2nd July and 29th June of the
academic session. She was not given the
3 All] Smt. Sumitra Dhuliya V. The Director of Education and others
1189
benefit of the extension of service provided
by the Government Order dated 21.3.1984.
She filed the writ petition praying for a
writ of mandamus commanding the
Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P.
Lucknow-respondent
no.1,
and
the
Additional
Director
of
Education
(Madhyamik), Education Directorate, UP
Allahabad-respondent no. 2 to extend her
services upto 30.6.1996. By an interim
order dated 29.3.1996 she was permitted to
continue to serve on the post, which she
was holding. The Division Bench, at the
time of hearing of the writ petition on
21.4.2009, noticed an apparent conflict in
the view taken by the two Division
Benches in the same year. It was found that
in Sarju Prasad vs. State of UP and
others Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 896
of 1967 decided on 14.3.1997 a Division
Bench of this Court held that the
Government Order is applicable only to the
teachers, who are teaching in a particular
session, and not to the training institutes. In
a later Division Bench decision in the same
year in Rajpati Pandey vs. State of UP
and others Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
20756 of 1990 decided on 02.05.1997 a
Division Bench held that the Government
Order dated 21.3.1998 will also apply to
Central Paedological Institute, Allahabad
(CPI), as it is a Government institute and
teaching takes place in the said institute.
The matter was thus referred to a larger
bench to resolve the conflict.

2. In our opinion, following questions
arise for consideration by us:-

"1. Whether the Government Order
dated 21.3.1984, providing for extension of
service
after
superannuation
to
the
Teachers, Headmasters and Principals of
Government Schools and Colleges upto
end of the academic session i.e. 30th June,
following the date on which they attain the
age
of
superannuation,
with
certain
conditions, is applicable to the staff of the
training
institutes
such
as
Central
Paedological Institute, Allahabad (CPI)?

2. Whether the Division Bench
judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
20756 of 1990 (Rajpati Pandey vs. State of
UP and others) decided on 2.5.1997 giving
extension of service after 30th June next
following the date of superannuation to the
Professors of the Central Paedological
Institute, Allahabad was correctly decided?
and;

3. Whether the view taken by
Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 896 of 1967 (Sarju Prasad vs.
State of UP and others) decided on
14.3.1997 lays down the correct law?"

3. Brief facts giving rise to the writ
petition are that the petitioner was selected
as LT grade teacher by UP Public Service
Commission in the year 1962, and was
appointed on a substantive post until she
was selected in the grade of Lecturer by
the
Commission
and
appointed
in
substantive capacity as Lecturer in the year
1974. She was confirmed on the post of
Lecturer on 4.3.1987. The date of birth of
the petitioner is 11.3.1938. In the year
1996, in which she was to attain the age of
superannuation,
she
was
serving
as
Professor in CPI, Allahabad. In paragraph4 of the writ petition, she claimed that she
was serving as Professor, in Research-cumTeaching Institute, and is taking classes
and that she was also incharge of the
Model School under the CPI, Allahabad.
The CPI is involved in research activities,
which
include
developments
and
modification of textbooks of students upto
Intermediate level. It also imparts training
1190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
to make students, known as Licentiate of
Teaching (L.T.). The activities of research
and training are combined activities
undertaken by the institute. As a teacher in
the institute since 1988, it is alleged, the
petitioner was doing both research and
teaching work and as incharge of a Model
School, a Junior High School, imparting
education from Classes I to VIII, She was
involved in day-to-day activities of the
school including the syllabus, curriculum
and overall teaching activities under her
guidance. She therefore claimed to be
entitled to be given the benefit of extension
of services until the end of the academic
session i.e. June 30, 1996.

4.

The
petitioner
made
a
representation on 28.8.1996 to give her
three months' extension of services upto
June, 1996. In her representation she stated
that
she
is
regularly
teaching
in
Government CPI and that in the previous
session she was teaching the subject of
Psychology to L.T. grade teachers. She has
been incharge of the Model School
attached to the CPI and has, for a period of
one year, worked as Administrative Officer
in the Government CPI. Her representation
was forwarded by the Director of State
Educational
Research
and
Training
Council, Lucknow to the Directorate of
Education on 19.3.1996. The petitioner
sent a reminder on 19.3.1996, and
thereafter filed the writ petition.

5. In the counter affidavit of Smt.
Prema Rai, Principal of CPI, Allahabad, it
is stated that the petitioner was appointed
as Assistant Mistress in L.T. Grade on
31.10.1961 in a temporary vacancy, and
was confirmed in the said grade on
1.4.1970. She was selected on the post of
Lecturer and was appointed on 26.6.1971.
She was promoted on ad-hoc basis as
Professor in the grade of Rs. 770-1670 and
was posted in Government CPI, Allahabad
on 19.12.1988. She had joined the institute
on 20.12.1988, and since then she is
working on the said post. The work in CPI,
Allahabad, is to conduct research on
various education systems and to develop
education work. The main work assigned
to the institute is to conduct research work
and to impart training to teachers. The
function of the post held by the petitioner
is not to teach the students admitted in the
institute for obtaining LT certificate. She is
required to conduct educational research
for re-orientation of educational system.
The petitioner does not teach or impart
education or take classes. In fact, she was
working on the post doing research work
and thus the conditions laid down in the
Government Orders dated 21.3.1984 and
20.4.1995 for extension of term, until the
completion of academic session, are not
applicable to her. In paragraph-5 of the
counter affidavit, it is stated that the
petitioner was not doing teaching work or
imparting education in the said institute.
She was only doing research work. The
Model School attached to CPI, Allahabad
was being headed by a Headmaster and is
engaged in imparting education to children
from Classes-I to VIII. Only supervision
work was entrusted by the then Principal
of CPI Allahabad, and no teaching work
was allotted to her. She was not teaching
the students of the Model School. In para10 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that
the CPI Allahabad is a non-educational
institution and is different from other
Schools and Colleges. The CPI, in which
the petitioner was posted on the post of
Professor, does not have any academic
session of its own, and like any other
Government office, it is open throughout
the year. The incumbents earn their leave
of
31
days
for
rendering
services
3 All] Smt. Sumitra Dhuliya V. The Director of Education and others
1191
throughout the year, unlike the staff of the
teaching institution, where earned leave is
admissible only for one day in a month as
vacations are availed by them.

6. In the rejoinder affidavit, the
petitioner has stated that she has been
engaged as a teacher from the date of her
initial appointment. For 40 years she has
been working as a teacher. The institute
undertakes both research and teaching
work. It revises syllabus from Class-I to
Intermediate
and
makes
suitable
recommendation for its revision, conduct
seminars, workshops and other research
orientation work. Apart from these the
institute also conducts LT training for
male. The designation of all teachers of
CPI is a Professor, which means a teacher
of the highest grade. The work of revision
of syllabus, introduction of new lessons
etc. are only of peripheral nature. The
petitioner is primarily a teacher. From the
beginning of her association with the
institute in the year 1988, she was teaching
and was imparting teaching to LT students.
The petitioner has annexed the time tables,
curriculum of training, practicals, projects
and publication to demonstrate that she
was also doing teaching work.

7. A supplementary affidavit was
filed by the petitioner reiterating that she
was a teacher and that she had taught in
Government
Girls
Inter
College
Lansedown, Pauri Garhwal; Government
Girls
Inter
College,
Dehradun;
Government Girls School, Allahabad and
is presently teaching in CPI, Allahabad.
She teaches the subjects of Methodology,
Education, Psychology amongst other
subjects in the institute. In the similar
circumstances, Shri U.D. Pandey a teacher
in CPI was also given extension of service.
He was allowed to teach upto 30th June,
1991.

8. In the supplementary counter
affidavit, Shri Ram Dutt Tewari, Professor,
Government, CPI, Allahabad has reiterated
that the petitioner was not doing any
teaching work. There is no session so far as
the institution CPI Allahabad is concerned.
It runs for whole of the year, and as such
the petitioner is not entitled to sessions
benefit. The State has relied upon
judgment in Saryu Prasad yadav s. State
of UP and others (supra) in which this
Court had denied the sessions benefit to
Professors of CPI.

9. Shri Shashi Kant Shukla, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the Division Bench in Rajpati
Pandey's case(supra) has correctly given
the benefit of extension of service to a
Professor of CPI upto 30th June of the year
in which he was retiring. The Division
Bench found that he was originally
appointed on the post of teacher in 1962,
and had worked for substantial part of his
service as a teacher. For a short period the
petitioner was on a non-teaching post.
When such teaching and non-teaching
posts are such that an employee can be
transferred from one post to another, the
petitioner cannot be deprived with the
benefit of the Government Order dated
21.3.1984, particularly when at the time of
retirement he was holding a teaching post.
The principle, on which the Government
order was issued, as it appears from the
Government order itself, does not justify
the exclusion of the petitioner from the
benefit. The only conditions, which have
been prescribed in the Government Order
dated 21.3.1984, are appearing from the
same and no case was made out by the
respondents that any of the conditions was
lacking. The Division Bench thereafter
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
proceeded to observe that the CPI is a
Government institute. The Government
Order itself indicates that same applies to
Government institutions in which teaching
takes place. The post held by the petitioner
upto his retirement was the post of
Professor and thus he is entitled to the
benefit of extension of service.

10. Shri Shukla submits that the
Government Order dated 21.3.1984 was
issued to give benefit to all the teachers
teaching in educational institutions. All the
conditions of the Government Order dated
21.3.1984 are applicable to the teachers of
the CPI, Allahabad. He relies upon
paragraphs 210, 211 and 226 of the
Education Code which defines 'academic
session' and which also includes academic
session for training institutions under
heading 'Training Sessions'. He has relied
upon a long career of the petitioner as a
teacher, her designation as a Professor, the
curriculum, and the time table annexed to
the rejoinder affidavit, and submits that the
petitioner was a teacher, and was serving in
a Government Training Institute for
imparting training to the teachers. She was,
therefore, entitled to the benefit of the
Government Order dated 21.3.1984 for
extension of service.

11. Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for the State,
submits that the Government Order dated
21.3.1984 provides for the objects in which
the extension of service as an exception to
the general rule was given to the teachers
of the Government educational institutions.
In the Government Schools and Colleges
the retirement of the teacher in the middle
of the academic session disturbed the
teaching work. The appointment of new
teachers, or their transfers and promotions
takes some time and that new teachers or
transferred and promoted teachers take
some time to start the teaching work with
the same speed. The State Government in
supercession of its earlier Government
Orders dated 8.2.1970, 12.5.1977 and
6.2.1978, issued directions in public
interest as an exception to the Fundamental
Rule 56 (a) of Financial Handbook Vol.2
Part II to IV, to provide for extension of
service of those Teachers, Headmasters
and Principals, who retire in between the
academic session (i.e., 1st July and before
30th June), and are attaining the age of 58
years upto the end of the academic session
i.e. 30th June, subject to conditions (i) that
their work and conduct during the period
of service has been satisfactory; (ii) they
are physically and mentally fit; (iii) they
are teaching some subjects regularly in the
school,
and
further
subject
to
the
conditions that in all such cases, it will be
necessary for the competent authority to
obtain order from the State Government.
Paragraph-4 of the Government Order
dated 21.3.1984 provides that those
officers, who are not doing any teaching
work, should not be assigned teaching
work in the last year of their service to give
them benefit of extension of service upto
30th June. Later on the demand of the
Rajkiya Shikshak Sangh, on 20.4.1995 the
Government Order dated 21.3.1984 was
partly amended to give the benefit of
extension upto the end of the academic
session i.e. 30th June, without any specific
order to that effect, unless the concerned
Principal has brought to the notice of
competent authority any adverse fact prior
to their retirement. The Principal was made
responsible to submit his report informing
any such fact regarding the health of the
government teachers, or the extent to
which his work was unsatisfactory to deny
to him the benefit of extension of service.
3 All] Smt. Sumitra Dhuliya V. The Director of Education and others
1193

12. Learned Chief Standing Counsel
submits that the Government Orders dated
21.3.1984 and 20.11.1995 were further
amended by Government Order dated
31.7.1998 by providing that the sessions
benefit will not be given automatically to
the Headmaster/Principal unless they give
written information/application one month
prior to attaining the age of superannuation
to the competent authority. He submits that
the benefit of extension of service to
teachers is co-related to the academic
session. The exception to the statutory
rules of superannuation, is primarily for the
benefit of students and not for the teachers.
Where in the government institutions there
are no students and there is no academic
session, nor the concerned teacher is
teaching any subject regularly in such
academic session, the benefit is not made
applicable.

13. Shri Chaturvedi submits that in
Sarju Prasad's case (supra) the Division
Bench deciding the case of Professor of
CPI Allahabad had dismissed the writ
petition for giving benefit of extension of
service on the ground that he was not
doing any teaching work and further that
there is no session so far as the Central
Paedological
Institute,
Allahabad
is
concerned. The institution runs for the
whole of the year. The petitioner earned
leave and is not entitled for the benefit to
continue upto the end of the academic
session, applicable to the teachers engaged
in teaching work for a particular session.
The Division Bench did not find anything
in Paragraphs 210, 211 and 226 of the
Education Code to give benefit to the
petitioner.

14. The service conditions of
Professors working in the Government
CPI, Allahabad are regulated by U.P.
Educational
Teaching
(Subordinate
Gazetted) Service Rules, 1993. The Rules
do not provide for age of superannuation.
Rule 17 of the Rules is in the nature of
residuary clause, provides as follows:-

"17. Regulation of other matters.- In
regard to the matters not specifically
covered by these rules or by special order,
persons appointed to the service shall be
governed by the rules, regulations and
orders applicable generally to Government
servants serving in connection with the
affairs of the State."

15. The age of superannuation of
Government servants in UP is regulated by
the Fundamental Rules 56 (a) falling under
Chapter IX of the Financial Hand Book
Vol. II, Parts II to IV. Rule 56 (1) provides
as follows:-

"56 (a) Except as otherwise provided
in this rule, every Government servant
other than a Government servant in inferior
service shall retire from service on the
afternoon of the last day of the month in
which he attains the age of fifty eight
years. He may be retained in service after
the date of compulsory retirement with the
sanction of the Government on public
grounds which must be recorded in
writing, but he must not be retained after
the age of 60 years except in very special
circumstances."

16. The rules of superannuation
prescribed in respect of public servants are
based on consideration of life expectancy,
and the capacity of the civil servant,
having regard to the climatic conditions in
which they work and the nature of work,
they do. The rules do not involve the
exercise of any discretion. They apply
uniformally to all public servants, under
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
the category, in respect of which they are
framed. In Ram Deka vs. General
Manager, North East Frontier Railway
AIR 1964 SC 600 the Supreme Court said
that the competent authority may frame
rules under Article 309 of Constitution
which corresponds to Section 124 of the
Constitution for compulsory retirement of
a government servant. All those rules as
laid down in State of Bombay v. Saubhag
Chand M. Doshi AIR 1957 SC 892 will
be valid provided they fix both the age of
superannuation and an age of compulsory
retirement and the services of permanent
civil servants are terminated between these
two points of time. In Ram Autar Pandey
v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 All
328 (FB) a Full Bench of our Court
observed:-

"The purpose of Fundamental R. 56 is
not to confer upon Government servants
any right to be retained in service up to a
particular age, but to prescribe the age
beyond which they may not be retained in
service.

This shows the intention with which
the rule was framed. What to say of a
vested right, not even a right was intended
to be conferred by R. 56. The petitioner
could not, therefore, say that because at
one stage 58 was the age of superannuation
according to the rule a right was conferred
upon him under which he could insist that
he should be retained in service till that age
and that the rule-making authority had lost
its right to change the rule and to reduce
the age of superannuation to a lower
figure."

17. In this reference, we are
concerned with extension of service as an
exception to FR-56 (a), to the petitioner.
Any exception to the rule of universal
application, has to be strictly construed. In
State of Assam vs. Basanta Kumar Das
AIR 1973 SC 1252 the Supreme Court
held in a case of Professor and Head of
Department of Physics in Government
Cotton
College,
Guwahati
that
a
government servant has no right to
continue in service beyond the age of
superannuation prescribed in the statutory
rules. If he is retained beyond that age it is
only in exercise of the discretion of the
Government. In B.N. Mishra vs. State of
UP AIR 1965 SC 1567 it was held that the
State Government was not obliged to retain
the services of every public servant for the
same length of time. The retention of
public servants after the period of
retirement depends upon their efficiency,
and exigencies of public service. If the
Government decides to retain the services
of some government servants after the age
of retirement, it must retain every
government servant for the same length of
time. The retention of public servants after
the period of retirement depends upon their
efficiency, and exigencies of public
service. In State Bank of Bikaner and
Jaipur and others vs. Jag Mohan Lal
1989 Supp 1 SCC 221 the Supreme Court,
considering the refusal of the bank to grant
extension to the respondent upon his
completion of 58 years, held that the
retention beyond the age of superannuation
is within the discretion of employer. There
is no right to continue in service beyond
the age of superannuation. The extension
to some employees does not imply
discrimination against those who were not
given extension.

18. In order to meet the difficulties
faced by the students on the change of a
teacher in educational institutions in the
middle of the academic session, the State
Government decided by Government
3 All] Smt. Sumitra Dhuliya V. The Director of Education and others
1195
Order dated 21.3.1984, to carve out an
exception for giving benefit of extension
of service to the teachers upto the end of
the academic session, subject to the
conditions that their work and conduct is
satisfactory; they are fit both physically
and mentally, and are teaching any subject
regularly in the school. The Government
Order provided for exemption of each
case
individually
by
the
State
Government, on presentation of such facts
by the competent authorities. Later the
Government
Order
dated
20.4.1995
removed the condition of consideration of
each case individually and supplemented
it with the condition that the extension
will not be granted if any adverse fact is
reported
against
the
teacher.
The
Principals were made responsible to
report at least one month before the
superannuation, any adverse fact such as
unsatisfactory work, or the unfitness of
such teacher. The condition precedent of
extension of service, namely employment
of
the
teacher
in
a
Government
educational institution to be terminated by
superannuation in the middle of the
academic session, is thus to be strictly
complied with.

19. We find substance in the
contention of learned Chief Standing
Counsel, on the averments in the counter
affidavit and material placed on record
that CPI, Allahabad, is primarily engaged
in
educational
research
work,
for
reorientation of educational system. The
institute conducts research work in
comparative
analysis
of
educational
standards, and facilities in rural and urban
areas, the difficulties faced by underprivileged children in the schools; the
recommendation
for
extra-curriculum
activities such as debates, organizing
special lecturers and seminars. The
institute is also engaged in preparing
curriculum and publishing of books
relating to teaching. The training of LT
grade teachers was also undertaken by the
institute for some time. It was later on
stopped. A Model School was being run in
the premises of CPI, Allahabad in which
the teaching of Classes-I to VIII was
undertaken. The school had separate
teachers with service conditions regulated
by the rules framed by Basic Education
Board and the regulations applicable to
the teachers of the Board.

20. Smt. Prema Rai, Principal of the
Government, CPI, Allahabad did not
recommend for extension of service of the
petitioner vide her letter dated 23.3.1996,
to the Director of Education (Secondary)
on the ground that the petitioner had not
performed any regular teaching work and
was engaged in the institute, in research
work. The petitioner had orally informed
her that she had taught Psychology, as a
subject but that there is no proof of such
teaching from the time table of the
teachers training. In para-3 of her letter
she has stated that there is no academic
session in the institute. The teachers and
Professors in the institute avail 31 days
earned leave and also get the benefit of
leave
encashment.
Smt.
Dhulia-the
petitioner also availed the benefit of
earned leave.

21. The object of giving benefit of
extension
of
service
beyond
the
prescribed age of superannuation to the
teachers upto end of the academic session
i.e. 30th June uniformally, without any
reference of individual case, except in
case of unsatisfactory work and failing
health, is to maintain the continuity in
teaching work in educational institutions.
In order to ensure that the students do not
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
suffer, on account of the change of
teachers in the middle of the academic
session, the teachers teaching regular
subjects are given extension of service
upto the end of academic session
commonly known as sessions benefit. The
teaching
of
any
subject
and
the
incomplete academic session, are the twin
requirements for allowing the benefit of
extension of service to such teachers. If
any of these requirements are missing, the
teacher is not getting the benefit of the
policy, to continue beyond the age of
superannuation.

22. The exceptions to the general
rule have to be construed strictly in order
to achieve the object for which such
exceptions are made. The special benefit
given to the teachers for avoiding any
inconvenience to the students and to
maintain the regularity of the academic
session, can be availed by teachers only to
extend their service after the age of their
superannuation, only if they fulfill such
conditions laid down in the Government
order dated 21.3.1984. Smt. Sumitra
Dhulia, the petitioner, was designated as
Professor in C.P.I. Allahabad. She was not
teaching any subject to the students
regularly. The CPI also imparts training to
the teachers. The teachers attend to the
training sessions, mostly in the vacations.
There is no academic session in the
institute. The teachers in the institute as
Government servants were required to
work throughout the year and are entitled
to earned leave and also encashment of
earned
leave,
upto
the
maximum
prescribed period of its accumulation.
They are as such not entitled to the benefit
of extension in service to continue upto
30th June, following the date of their
superannuation.

23. The questions posed by us,
arising out of two decisions with
conflicting opinions, are thus answered as
follows:-

"1. The Government Order dated
21.3.1984 granting extension of service to
the Teachers, Headmasters and Principals
of Government Colleges and Government
Degree Colleges, till the end of the
academic session i.e. 30th June of the
year in which such Teacher, Headmaster
or Principals retire, is not applicable to the
employees including Professors working
in
Central
Paedological
Institute,
Allahabad (CPI).

2. The judgment in Rajpati Pandey
vs. State of UP and others in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 20756 of 1990 dated
2.5.1997, was not correctly decided;

3. The Division Bench judgment in
Sarju Prasad vs. State of UP and others
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 896 of
1967 decided on 14.03.1997, lays down
the correct law;"

24. We may observe that our opinion
has been rendered in respect of the
teachers, and Professors of the Central
Paedological Institute, Allahabad, and not
for the teachers of the Model School,
running in the campus of the Institute,
from Classes-I to VIII.

25. The record will be sent back to
be listed before the concerned bench to
finally decide the writ petition in
accordance with the opinion, expressed as
above.
---------
3 All] Jag Mohan Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1197
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.09.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12959 of 1988

Jag Mohan Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D.N. Singh
Sri R.S. Maurya
Sri S.K. Shukla
Sri V.S. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

U.P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
land
Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972 Section
4-A-Declaration of Surplus Land-Without
recording the finding regarding-irrigation
facility as well as-growing two crops in
that
relevant
year-Non
consideration
thereof-held-requirement
of
statutory
provision not fulfilled-to order passed by
both the authorities not sustainable.

Held: Para 7 & 8

Since under the impugned order only first
part of the condition has not been
recorded to have been satisfied inasmuch
as there is no finding that any irrigation
facility was made available by the State
Irrigation Work after enforcement of the
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972.
Requirements of Section 4-A cannot be
said to have been satisfied.

The contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioner appears to be correct and is
well supported by the judgement of this
Court in the case of Manmohan Singh vs.
State of U.P. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 12958 of 1988 decided on 8.5.2007.
For the reasons recorded above this writ
petition is allowed. The orders dated
6.12.1985 & 15.4.1988 passed by the
Prescribed Authority as well as by the
Appellate Authority are hereby set aside.
Case law discussed:
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12958 of 1988
decided on 8.5.2007

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Proceeding under Section 29/30 read
with Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were initiated
against the petitioner, under notice dated
18.10.1983.
The
petitioner
filed
his
objections to the aforesaid notice and
specifically stated that conditions required
under Section 4-A of the Act were not
satisfied and that the proceedings were
without jurisdiction. It was contended that
Gata Nos. 260 & 286 were wrongly shown
have become irrigable and, therefore, the
entire proceedings are bad. It was clarified
that no source of irrigation through State
Irrigation Work has come into operation
subsequent to the enforcement of the Uttar
Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972 and,
therefore, merely because during relevant
year two crops were grown, would not lead
to conclusion that the land was irrigated. The
prescribed authority under the order dated
6.12.1985 rejected the objections so raised
and declared 2.30 of irrigated land as surplus.

2. Not being satisfied, the petitioner
filed an appeal before the Commissioner,
Jhansi Region, Jhansi being Appeal No.
4/55/12/38/46 of 1987-88. The appeal has
been dismissed under the order dated
15.4.1988. Hence this petition.

3. On behalf of the petitioner, it is
vehemently
contended
that
both
the
authorities have recorded a finding that since