# Roop Chandra v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 275
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-01-30
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52720 of 2007
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/roop-chandra-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41361
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Art. 226-Pension
and gratuity-petitioner working as class
4th employee in Intermediate College
running under grant in-aid-retired on
31.10.05-G.O. dated 19.4.2006 for the
first time provides benefit of gratuity
and pension to the non teaching staffdenied on the ground of retirement date
prior to the enforcement of provision--
mis-conceived-petitioner held entitled
for benefit of G.O. 19.4.06-direction for
payment of post retired benefit with
15% interest given.

Held: Para 12

From the above proposition of law laid
down by the Apex Court and this Court it
is
clear
that
the
benefit
of
the
Government
Order
dated
19.4.2006
cannot be denied to the employees who
retired prior to 19.4.2006 and such
benefits are also available to them,
including the petitioner. The notification
is always read prospectively unless it is
made retrospective. The Government
Order dated 19.4.2006 has been further
clarified by the Government Order dated
23.11.2007 which says that the benefit is
available w.e.f. 19.4.2006. In this view
of the matter, the petitioner is entitled
for the benefit of the Government Order
dated 19.4.2006 w.e.f. 19.4.2006 and
prior to that.
Case law discussed:
1983 (1) SCC-305, 1998 (2) UPL.BEC-1525,
2001 (4) ESC-1589, 2004 (3) ESC-1690, 2002
(1) ESC-136

## Text

1 All] Roop Chandra V. State of U.P. and others
275
retirement,
the
arrears
would
be
calculated and paid within two months
thereafter.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52720 of 2007

Roop Chandra

...Petitioner

Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Awadh Narain Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India-Art. 226-Pension
and gratuity-petitioner working as class
4th employee in Intermediate College
running under grant in-aid-retired on
31.10.05-G.O. dated 19.4.2006 for the
first time provides benefit of gratuity
and pension to the non teaching staffdenied on the ground of retirement date
prior to the enforcement of provision--
mis-conceived-petitioner held entitled
for benefit of G.O. 19.4.06-direction for
payment of post retired benefit with
15% interest given.

Held: Para 12

From the above proposition of law laid
down by the Apex Court and this Court it
is
clear
that
the
benefit
of
the
Government
Order
dated
19.4.2006
cannot be denied to the employees who
retired prior to 19.4.2006 and such
benefits are also available to them,
including the petitioner. The notification
is always read prospectively unless it is
made retrospective. The Government
Order dated 19.4.2006 has been further
clarified by the Government Order dated
23.11.2007 which says that the benefit is
available w.e.f. 19.4.2006. In this view
of the matter, the petitioner is entitled
for the benefit of the Government Order
dated 19.4.2006 w.e.f. 19.4.2006 and
prior to that.
Case law discussed:
1983 (1) SCC-305, 1998 (2) UPL.BEC-1525,
2001 (4) ESC-1589, 2004 (3) ESC-1690, 2002
(1) ESC-136

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

1. By means of present petition, the
petitioner is seeking a direction to the
respondents to grant gratuity and other
retiral benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as
Class IV employee on 7.8.1971 by a
competent authority in a institution named
as Mahamana Malviya Inter College
Khekhada, District Aligarh imparting
secondary education and is under grantin-aid by the State Government. The
provision for payment of salary of 1971 is
applicable. The petitioner attained the age
of superannuation at the age of 58 years
on 31.10.2005. Admittedly, when the
petitioner retired he was not entitled for
gratuity and other retiral benefits. The
State Government by the Government
Order dated 19.4.2006 provided the
benefits of gratuity and other retiral
benefits to the non-teaching Class I V
employees. The petitioner claimed the
benefit of gratuity and post retiral benefits
on the basis of the Government Order
dated 19.4.2006 and accordingly filed a
representation
in
this
regard.
The
representation has not been decided. The
petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.

3. The respondent has filed the
counter affidavit stating therein that the
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
petitioner is not entitled for the gratuity
and other retiral benefits as he has retired
prior
to
19.4.2006
and
under
the
Government Order dated 19.4.2006 only
those non-teaching staffs are entitled for
the benefit of the gratuity and post retiral
benefits, who retires after 19.4.2006. This
position has been clarified by the
Government Order dated 23.11.2007.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Government order
dated 19.4.2006 is applicable to those
employees also who have retired prior to
19.4.2006. Thus, the petitioner is entitled
for the benefit of gratuity and other post
retiral benefits under the Government
Order dated 19.4.2006. In support of the
contention he relied upon the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of D.S.
Nakara and others Vs. Union of India
reported in 1983 (1) SCC-305, Dhanraj
and others Vs. State of Jammu and
Kashmir and others, reported in 1998
(2) UPL.BEC-1525, Shanti Devi (Smt.)
Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2001 (4)
ESC-1589 and Mohan Lal Sharma and
etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and another,
reported in 2004 (3) ESC-1690.

5. Learned Standing Counsel states
that the petitioner is not entitled for the
gratuity and post retiral benefits as the
Government Order dated 19.4.2006 was
prospective and the benefit of post retiral
benefits and gratuity is available only to
those who retired after 19.4.2006. In
alternative he submitted that if the
Government Order dated 19.4.2006 is
made applicable to those who retired
before 19.4.2006, the retired employees
would be entitled for the benefit only
w.e.f. 19.4.2006 and not prior to that,
which is also clear from the Government
Order dated 23.11.2007.
6. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

7. I have given my anxious
consideration to the rival submissions and
also perused the relevant Government
Orders. The Government Order dated
19.4.2006 and a subsequent clarificatory
Government Order dated 23.11.2007 read
as follows:

la[;k&1221@15&8&06&30031⁄4151⁄2@04

"izs"kd]

,p0,y0xqIrk]

fo'ks"k lfpo]

m0iz0 'kkluA

lsok esa]

f'k{kk funs'kd 1⁄4ek01⁄2]

m0iz0] y[kuÅA

f'k{kk 1⁄481⁄2 vuqHkkx y[kuÅ% fnukad% 19 vizSy] 2006

fo"k;% v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa
dk;Zjr f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dks 60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q
ij xzsP;qVh o vU; lsok uSo`fRrd ykHk vuqeU; fd, tkus
fo"k;dA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr
fo"k;d
funs'kd
ds
i=kad&isa'ku
1⁄421⁄2@2167@2005&2006 fnukad 29 uoEcj 2005 ds
lanHkZ esa eq>s vkils ;g dgus dk funsZa'k gqvk gS fd izns'k ds
v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa 'kklu }kjk
vuqeksfnr inksa ij fof/kor fu;qDr gksdj dk;Zjr
lh/kh@iw.kZdkfyd leLr f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dks 58 o"kZ dh
vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij lsok fuo`Rr gksus ds le; iwoZ ls vuqeU;
fodYi pquus dh lqfo/kk lekIr djrs gq, mUgsa 60 o"kZ dh
vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij xzsP;qVh o vU; lsok uSo`fRrd ykHk
vuqeU; fd, tkus dh Jh jkT;iky egksn; lg"kZ Lohd`fr
iznku djrs gSaA

2&
bl laca/k esa iwoZ esa fuxZr leLr 'kklukns'k mDr
lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>s tk;saxs rFkk mudh 'ks"k 'krsZa ;Fkkor
jgsaxhA
1 All] Roop Chandra V. State of U.P. and others
277
3&
m0iz0 b.VjehfM,V ,twds'ku ,sDr ds laxr fu;eksa
vko';d la'kks/ku dh dk;Zokgh 'kklukns'k ds fuxZr gksus ds
vf/kdre rhu ekg dh vof/k esa lqfuf'pr dj yh tk;sxhA

4&
;s
vkns'k
foRr
foHkkx
ds
v'kkldh;
la0&;w0vks0@bZ&1@1045@nl&2006 fnukad 18&4&06 esa
izkIr mudh lgefr ls tkjh fd, tk jgs gSaA
Hkonh;]
,p0,y0xqIrk]
fo'ks"k lfpoA
lsok fuo`Rr f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dks fdl frfFk ls ykHk ns;
la[;k&2242@15-8-07-3003 1⁄4151⁄2/04

izs"kd]

,Q0,u0 iz/kku

la;qDr lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA
lsok esa]

f'k{kk funs'kd 1⁄4ek01⁄2 m0iz0

f'k{kk isa'ku&2 vuqHkkx]

bykgkckn@y[kuÅA

f'k{kk 1⁄481⁄2 vuqHkkx

y[kuÅ% fnukad%
23 uoEcj] 2007

fo"k;%&ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{k.ksRr deZpkfj;ksa dks
60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij xzsP;qVh o vU; lsokfuo`fRrd
ykHk vuqeU; fd, tkus gsrq dV&vkQ MsV fu/kkZfjr fd,
tkus ds lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr fo"k;d vkids i=kad isa'ku&2/2351/200708 fn0 08-10-07 ds lanHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k
gqvk gS fd iz'uxr izdj.k esa fuxZr 'kklukns'k
la[;k&21/15-8-2006-3003 15/04 fnukad 19-42006 mlh frfFk ls ykxw@izHkkoh] gS] ftl frfFk ls mDr
'kklukns'k fuxZr gqvk gSA bl izdkj 'kklukns'k fnukad 194-2006 }kjk vuqeU; ykHk Hkh 'kklukns'k fuxZr gksus ds
fnukad ls gh ns; gSA
Hkonh;]
1⁄4,p0,u0 iz/kku1⁄2
la;qDr lfpoA"

8. In the case of Shanti Devi (Smt.)
Versus State of U.P. and others (Supra)
the family pension was provided vide
Government Order dated 24.2.1989 w.e.f.
1.1.1989. The family pension was denied
to the petitioner Shanti Devi on the
ground that her husband who was the
Class IV employee in the State aided
Junior High School died on 20.11.1987
i.e. before 1.1.1989. This Court following
the decision in the Writ Petition No.
34835 of 1995 Mahmooda Begum and
Writ Petition No. 23609 of 1995 Smt.
Akhtari
Begum
Vs.
Director
of
Education held that the petitioner was
entitled for the benefit of family pension
in view of the Government Order w.e.f.
1.1.1989. Similar view has also been
taken by another learned single Judge in
the case of Rajmuni Devi Versus
District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur
and others, reported in 2002 (1) ESC136. In this case also the benefit of family
pension was denied on the ground that
husband of the petitioner who was the
employee died on 31.8.1987 prior to
1.1.1989. Learned single Judge has held
that denial of family pension to the
petitioner on the aforesaid ground is
illegal following the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of D.S. Nakara Vs.
Union of India (Supra).

9. In the case of Dhan Raj and
others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir
and others (Supra), the question was
whether the drivers and conductors of
Jammu & Kashmir State Road Transport
Corporation who retired prior to 9th June,
1981 were entitled for the benefit of the
pension under the Government Order
dated 3.10.1986 granting pension w.e.f.
9th June, 1981. The Apex Court held that
the drivers and conductors of Jammu &
Kashmir
State
Road
Transport
Corporation who retired prior to 9th June,
1981 are also entitled for the benefit of
the pension under the Government Order
dated 3.10.1986 in as much as denial of
the pension to those drivers amounts to
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
discrimination and violative of Article 14.
Relying the decision of Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of
India (Supra) wherein it has been held
that the criterion of date of enforcement
of the revised scheme entitling benefits of
the revision to those retiring after
specified date while depriving the benefits
to those retiring prior to that date was
violative of Article 14. The Apex Court
further held that even otherwise, while
considering the question of grant of
pensionary benefits the State has to act to
reach the constitutional goal of setting up
a socialist State as stated and the
assurance as given in the Directive
Principles of State Policy. A pension is a
part and parcel of that goal, which secures
to a person serving with the State after
retirement of his livelihood. To deny such
a right to such a person, without any
sound
reasoning
or
any
justifiable
differentia would be against the spirit of
the Constitution.

10. In the case of Mohan Lal
Sharma and etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
and another (Supra), the Rajasthan High
Court has also held that there was no
justification in denying the pensionary
benefits to those who retired prior to
1.10.1987 and granting benefits to those
who retired after 1.10.1987.

11. In the case of D.S. Nakara and
others Vs. Union of India (Supra), the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court
held that all the pensioners have equal
right to receive the benefits of liberalised
pension scheme. Pensioners form a class
as a whole and cannot be micro-classified
by
an
arbitrary,
unprincipled
and
unreasonable eligibility criterion for the
purpose of grant of revised pension.
Criterion of date of enforcement of the
revised scheme entitling benefits of the
revision to those retiring after that date
while depriving the benefits to those
retiring prior to that date, held, violative
of Article 14.

12. From the above proposition of
law laid down by the Apex Court and this
Court it is clear that the benefit of the
Government
Order
dated
19.4.2006
cannot be denied to the employees who
retired prior to 19.4.2006 and such
benefits are also available to them,
including the petitioner. The notification
is always read prospectively unless it is
made retrospective. The Government
Order dated 19.4.2006 has been further
clarified by the Government Order dated
23.11.2007 which says that the benefit is
available w.e.f. 19.4.2006. In this view of
the matter, the petitioner is entitled for the
benefit of the Government Order dated
19.4.2006 w.e.f. 19.4.2006 and prior to
that.

13. In the result, writ petition is
allowed in part. The respondent is
directed to allow the benefit of the
Government Order dated 19.4.2006 to the
petitioner w.e.f. 19.4.2006 if till date
nothing has been paid to the petitioner,
the entire dues may be paid forthwith
preferably within a period of two months
from the date of presentation of the
certified copy of the order along with
simple interest at the rate of 5%.

14. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
1 All] Dr. Khetpal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
279
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.R. ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.55336 of 2006

Dr. Khetpal Singh

...Petitioner

Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.P. Varshney
Sri Yogendra Kumar Yadav
Sri Amrit Lal Yadav
Sri R.K. Tiwari
Sri M.A. Qadir
S.C.

High Court Rule-Chapter XII-Rule 7Successive
writ
Petition-misleading
Court by twisting and camouflage can
not be ignored-petition dismissed with
exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Held: Para 15

We do not find any merit in this writ
petition. On the contrary, we find that
the petitioner is guilty of not only filing
successive writ petition but also of
misleading this Court by twisting and
camouflages. Such an approach by the
petitioner who is well educated person
and had good legal assistance also is
nothing but gross abuse of the process of
law besides wastage of Court's precious
time which could have been utilized for
deciding other deserving cases. Such an
attitude of the litigant deserves to be
curbed. It is a fit case where this Court
must impose exemplary costs so that
such persons may deter from wasting
precious public time which may be
utilized for other substantial matters
where the litigants are waiting for their
turn to get justice.
Case law discussed:
1996 (3) ESC 186, Writ petition No. 34 of 1996
(SB) (Dr. Triloki Singh Vs. State of U.P. &
others), 2292 of 1997 (Dr. Yogendra Pratap
Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others),
A.I.R. 1996 SC 2687; A.I.R. 1997 SC 1005;
A.I.R. 1998 SC 1297=1998 (3) SCC573, 2006
(2) AWC 1545, A.I.R. 2007 SC 1151, , AIR
2005 SC 565 (Para-12, AIR 2006 SC 1142
(Para-8).

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.R. Alam, J.)

1.

Heard
Shri
Anil
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner at great length, Shri V.P.
Varsheney, learned counsel for the U.P.
Public Service Commission assisted by
Shri Yogendra Kumar Yadav and learned
Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioner by means of the
present petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution has sought the following
relief:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to treat the petitioner selectee
and to provide the appointment on the
post in question.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to pay the salary to the
petitioner according to law with all
emoluments month to month.

(iii) Issue any other writ, relief to
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper may be awarded in favour of
petitioner."

3. The facts which are not disputed,
as apparent from the record are that in
1989 U.P. Public Service Commission