# Sewa Ram Pathak Abhay and others v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 247
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-13
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sewa-ram-pathak-abhay-and-others-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-42094
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-benefit
of
pension-petitioners
working
as
Assistant Teacher-retired on 30.06.2009seeking
direction
to
accept
the
management contribution with interestclaiming benefits of period of working
prior to grant in aid for computation of
qualifying period of pension-in view of
G.O. Dated 26.07.2001-while cut of date
given in G.O. Already quashed in Smt.
Shanti Solanki case-followed in several
decisions-if
petitioner
deposit
entire
amount of contribution of management
with
interest
within
six
weeksrespondents
to
extend
for
pension
purpose.

Held: Para 8

In the facts and circumstances of the
case
and
considering
the
aforesaid
decisions as also the fact that petitioners
are ready to pay the entire amount of
Management's contribution along with
interest, this writ petition is allowed in
the same terms and conditions as
contained
in
judgment
dated
06.09.2006, Smt. Shanti Solanki (supra).
If the petitioners deposit Management's
contribution
together
with
interest
within a period of six weeks from today,
the respondents shall proceed to extend
benefit of Government Order dated
26.07.2001 to the petitioners as well.
The aforesaid exercise will be completed
within three months from the date of
such
deposit
and
production
of
a
certified copy of this order. No order as
to cost.

## Text

1 All] Sewa Ram Pathak Abhay and others V. The State of U.P. and others

247
Central Administrative Tribunal and a
decision in accordance with law will have to
be taken.

21. As the matter is quite old the
Central Administrative Tribunal is expected
to decide the matter with all expedition
preferably within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order from either of the sides.

22. For the reasons given above, this
writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 9.9.2003
(annexure no. 15) is hereby quashed and the
matter is relegated for being heard and
decided as indicated above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 62458 of 2011

Sewa Ram Pathak Abhay and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Krishan Ji Khare
Sri Mritunjay Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri J.N. Maurya
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-benefit
of
pension-petitioners
working
as
Assistant Teacher-retired on 30.06.2009seeking
direction
to
accept
the
management contribution with interestclaiming benefits of period of working
prior to grant in aid for computation of
qualifying period of pension-in view of
G.O. Dated 26.07.2001-while cut of date
given in G.O. Already quashed in Smt.
Shanti Solanki case-followed in several
decisions-if
petitioner
deposit
entire
amount of contribution of management
with
interest
within
six
weeksrespondents
to
extend
for
pension
purpose.

Held: Para 8

In the facts and circumstances of the
case
and
considering
the
aforesaid
decisions as also the fact that petitioners
are ready to pay the entire amount of
Management's contribution along with
interest, this writ petition is allowed in
the same terms and conditions as
contained
in
judgment
dated
06.09.2006, Smt. Shanti Solanki (supra).
If the petitioners deposit Management's
contribution
together
with
interest
within a period of six weeks from today,
the respondents shall proceed to extend
benefit of Government Order dated
26.07.2001 to the petitioners as well.
The aforesaid exercise will be completed
within three months from the date of
such
deposit
and
production
of
a
certified copy of this order. No order as
to cost.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Krishna Ji Khare,
learned counsel for the petitioners and
Sri J.N. Maurya for the respondents 2 to
5.

2. The only relief sought by the
petitioners is that the respondents should
get
amount
of
Management's
contribution deposited with interest from
the petitioners and compute the services
rendered by them prior to the institution
concerned brought in grant-in-aid for the
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

purpose of retiral benefit like pension
etc.

3. The petitioners 1, 2 and 3 while
working
as
Assistant
Teacher
or
Headmaster as the case may be have
retired on 30.6.2009, 30.6.2008 and
30.6.2009
respectively
while
the
petitioners 4, 5 and 6 will retire in future.

4. The State Government issued a
Government
Order
dated
26.7.2001
extending
period
of
deposit
of
Management's contribution along with
interest in Government Treasury upto
30.3.2002. On such deposit the period of
service rendered in the institution prior to
its brining on grant-in-aid would count
for pensionary benefit.

5. It is said that management of the
institution in which petitioners working
did not deposit the said amount. The
petitioners however are ready to deposit
the said amount from their own but the
same is not being permitted by the
respondents. Attention is also drawn to
this Court's order dated 6.9.2006 in Writ
Petition No.75746 of 2006 "Smt. Shanti
Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and others",
whereby the cut of date provided in the
Government order dated 26.7.2001 has
already been quashed and this Court
allowed
deposit
of
the
amount
subsequently. The said decision has been
followed later on also in several cases
including Writ Petition No.42467 of
2007 "Vidhya Ratan Maheshwari Vs.
State of U.P. and others" decided on
11.5.2010 and Writ Petition No.74896
of 2010 "Ram Babu Pachauri Vs. State
of U.P. and another" decided on
23.12.2010.

6. On behalf of respondents a
counter affidavit has been filed, it is
stated that the petitioners 1, 2 and 3 have
already been paid their retiral benefit
including
General
Provident
Fund
(G.P.F.). The petitioners 1 and 3 are also
getting pension but petitioner 2 has not
been granted pension benefit since he has
not put 10 years required service from
the date of grant-in-aid i.e. on 1.12.1998.
It is further stated that from 1.4.2009 a
new pension scheme has been made
operative and, therefore, the earlier
Government Order cannot be pressed
into service.

7. A perusal of the Government
Order dated 8.4.2009 makes it clear that
it would be applicable to only those
institutions which have been brought in
grant-in-aid after 1.4.2005. It is not the
case of respondents that the institution in
question
namely
Rashtriya
Vidya
Mandir, Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Khawajphool, Rama Bai Nagar (Kanpur
Dehat) was taken on grant-in-aid in 2005
i.e. after 1.4.2005. On the contrary it is
admitted in paragraph 7 of the counter
affidavit that the said institution was
taking in grant-in-aid on 1.12.1998. In
the
circumstances,
the
Government
Order dated 8.4.2009 has no application
to the institution in question. A faint
attempt was made by referring to U.P.
Provisions of General Provident Fund
U.P. Rules 1985 but nothing could be
shown as to how that would be relevant
to form a different opinion then what has
already been expressed by this Court in
several
cases
like
Vidhya
Ratan
Maheshwari (supra) and Smt. Shanti
Solanki (supra) etc.

8. In the facts and circumstances of
the case and considering the aforesaid
1 All] Dayanand Sury Englo Sanskrat Higher Secondry School V. State of U.P. and others

249
decisions as also the fact that petitioners
are ready to pay the entire amount of
Management's contribution along with
interest, this writ petition is allowed in
the same terms and conditions as
contained in judgment dated 06.09.2006,
Smt. Shanti Solanki (supra). If the
petitioners
deposit
Management's
contribution together with interest within
a period of six weeks from today, the
respondents shall proceed to extend
benefit of Government Order dated
26.07.2001 to the petitioners as well. The
aforesaid exercise will be completed
within three months from the date of
such deposit and production of a certified
copy of this order. No order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75527 of 2011

Dayanand Sury Englo Sanskrat Higher
Secondary School

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Saxena
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri D.D. Chauhan
Sri Rajesh Kumar (S.C.)

U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952-Section
15 A-Cancellation of Patta-granted to a
recognized
institution
Intermediate
College-on
complaint
collector
canceled the Patta for area of 24.30
acre-argument
regarding
legal
definition of person includes 'Company'
a juristic person also-held-scheme of
Bhudan Act postulates distribution of
land only to natural person lower caste
downtrodden neighbors by the land
owner- "person" be interpreted in
narrower sense and not in broader or
legal sense-order impugned perfectly
justified-warrants no interference by
Writ Court.

Held: Para 30

In view of above, I am of the opinion
that the meaning of the word 'person'
used in Section 14 of the Act has to be
construed in a narrower sense in the
context of the Bhoodan scheme which
envisaged for giving land to the tillers
of the soil excluding all juristic persons
from its ambit.
Case law discussed:
1986 ALJ 645; 2003 (95) RD 278; 2003 (95)
RD 320; 2002 (93) RD 13; 1988 RD 363
(SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. )

1. In this writ petition the question
which surfaces for consideration is
whether the petitioner was eligible for
allotment of land under the scheme of
the Bhoodan Yagna and the provisions
of Section 14 of the U.P. Bhoodan
Yagna Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as
Act) and if not whether allotment made
in favour of the petitioner was liable to
be cancelled in exercise of powers under
Section 15-A of the Act.

2. Admitted facts are that the
petitioner is an institution recognized
under the U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 and is imparting education
including the subject of agriculture.
Petitioner by the very nature of its
activity is not an agriculturist and is not
earning livelihood through agriculture.
Nonetheless, petitioner was allotted
various plots of land, 16 in number