# Smt. Maya v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Baghpat & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 906
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-16
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 17029 of 2013
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-maya-v-zila-basic-shiksha-adhikari-baghpat-ors-53465
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972
- Pension/Family Pension - Petitioner's
husband appointed as untrained teacher
on 19.11.1963, retired on 30.06.1991.
Petitioner's husband was denied pension
on ground of not completing 15 years of
service as on cut-off date 25.07.1973
under G.O. dated 30.05.1973. Held : High
Court held that subsequent G.O. dated
04.12.1982 reducing requirement to 10
years of regular service up to 30.06.1978
squarely applied, as petitioner's husband
had rendered more than 14 years of
service by then; rejection of claim by
relying only on earlier G.O. was illegal.
Once order dated 05.03.2008 rejecting
pension was set aside, legal consequence
would follow. However, since employee
died in 2011 and petitioner (widow, aged
about 85 years) has been litigating for
decades, Court directed State to pay her a
lump-sum compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-
in lieu of family pension. Order passed in
peculiar circumstances and not to be
treated as precedent. (Paras 20-28).

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the time of retirement from service, the
appellant had completed more than three
decades in Government Service. Obviously,
therefore, he was entitled to retiral benefits
in accordance with law. True it is that
certain charge- sheets/ show cause notices
were issued against him and the appellant
was called upon to show cause why
disciplinary proceedings should not be
initiated against him. It is, however, the
case of the appellant that all those actions
had been taken at the instance of Mr.
Quraishi against whom serious allegations
of mal- practices and mis-conduct had been
levelled by the appellant which resulted in
removal of Mr. Quraishi from the post of
Secretary,
Irrigation.
The
said
Mr.
Quraishi then became Principal Secretary
to
the
Chief
Minister.
Immediately
thereafter charge-sheets were issued to the
appellant and proceedings were initiated
against him. The fact remains that
proceedings were finally dropped and all
retiral benefits were extended to the
appellant. But it also cannot be denied that
those benefits were given to the appellant
after four years. In the circumstances,
prima facie, we are of the view that the
grievance voiced by the appellant appears
to be well- founded that he would be
entitled to interest on such benefits. If there
are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the
appellant could claim payment of interest
relying on such Rules. If there are
Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or
Norms prescribed for the purpose, the
appellant may claim benefit of interest on
that basis. But even in absence Statutory
Rules,
Administrative
Instructions
or
Guidelines, an employee can claim interest
under Part III of the Constitution relying
on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution. The submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant, that retiral
benefits are not in the nature of bounty is,
in our opinion, well-founded and needs no
authority in support thereof. In that view of
the matter, in our considered opinion, the
High Court was not right in dismissing the
petition in limine even without issuing
notice to the respondents."

10. It is further to be seen that no
explanation
has
been
given by
the
respondents as to why there was delay in
payment of the leave encashment dues.
Once there is no justification, therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of
retirement of the petitioner till the date of
actual payment. The aforesaid interest shall
be paid by respondent no. 2 within a period
of three months from the date of production
of certified copy of this order. If the
amount is not paid within said period, then
the petitioner would be entitled to penal
compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per
day
in
addition
to
interest
abovementioned.

11.

With
the
aforesaid
observation/direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 906
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 17029 of 2013

Smt. Maya ...Petitioner
Versus
Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Baghpat & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
5 All. Smt. Maya Vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Baghpat & Ors.
907
Sri Siya Ram Sahu, Sri Vishnu Gupta (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajesh Yadav, Sri Ashutosh Mishra

Civil Law - U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972
- Pension/Family Pension - Petitioner's
husband appointed as untrained teacher
on 19.11.1963, retired on 30.06.1991.
Petitioner's husband was denied pension
on ground of not completing 15 years of
service as on cut-off date 25.07.1973
under G.O. dated 30.05.1973. Held : High
Court held that subsequent G.O. dated
04.12.1982 reducing requirement to 10
years of regular service up to 30.06.1978
squarely applied, as petitioner's husband
had rendered more than 14 years of
service by then; rejection of claim by
relying only on earlier G.O. was illegal.
Once order dated 05.03.2008 rejecting
pension was set aside, legal consequence
would follow. However, since employee
died in 2011 and petitioner (widow, aged
about 85 years) has been litigating for
decades, Court directed State to pay her a
lump-sum compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-
in lieu of family pension. Order passed in
peculiar circumstances and not to be
treated as precedent. (Paras 20-28).

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Petitioner has claimed that her
husband
was
initially
appointed
on
01.10.1957 as untrained Teacher in a
Primary
School,
Karmalipur
Garhi,
Baghpat, Meerut. She further claimed that
her
husband
obtained
training
from
19.05.1960 to 30.05.1960 from a training
camp based at Sarurpur Kalan. She further
claimed that her husband was thereafter
appointed
as
an
untrained
Assistant
Teacher on 19.11.1963 at a Primary
School,
Karmalipur
Garhi,
Baghpat,
Meerut where he worked up to 30.06.1991
i.e. till his retirement.

2. Petitioner has further claimed that
her husband worked for about 34 years
from his initial appointment i.e. 01.10.1957
till his retirement i.e. 30.06.1991. It is
further case of petitioner that despite her
husband worked for such long time, he was
denied pension and for that he has
submitted various representations.

3.

In
aforesaid
circumstances,
petitioner's husband has filed a Writ A No.
20312/1999, which was disposed of vide
order dated 08.05.1999, that B.S.A.,
Meerut will decide claim of petitioner
regarding retiral benefits in accordance
with law.

4. In pursuance of above order, claim
of petitioner's husband was considered,
however, by an order dated 25.01.2000, it
was rejected on a ground that in terms of a
Government
Order
dated
30.05.1973
petitioner's husband could not be exempted
from training since before cut off date i.e.
25.07.1973, he was required to complete
service of 15 years, but he has completed
service of only 9 years 8 months and 6
days. Date of appointment of petitioner was
taken
on
19.11.1963
when he
was
appointed as untrained teacher.

5. Aforesaid order was thereafter
challenged at behest of petitioner's husband
by way of filing Writ A No. 30422/2000
which was allowed vide order dated
04.01.2008 and relevant part thereof is
quoted below :-

"In view of the above chronology
of events, it is clear that the petitioner was
not afforded opportunity of hearing to put
forth his case before the Basic Shiksha
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Adhikari. The circular dated 4.12.82 (sub
para 1) clearly provides that if an
untrained teacher has completed 10 years
service on 30.06.78, he was entitled for all
the benefits as spelt out in the relevant
Government
Orders
and
circulars
Moreover, even if the petitioner's services
are counted with effect from 01.10.1957
he had completed 15 years service much
before 25.07.73. Thus, it appears that
material facts have been excluded from
consideration and re-hearing and reappraisal or material on record is required
in the interest of justice.

In view of the above, the writ is
allowed and the order dated 25.01.2000
passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikar,
Meerut is quashed. The Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Meerut is directed to call for the
record, fix a date of hearing for taking into
account the version of the petitioner. It
shall be open for the petitioner to place all
the relevant Government Orders and
circulars to support his case. The Basic
Shiksha Adhikari after appreciating the
material on record and taking into account
the version of the petitioner shall pass
appropriate order in accordance with law
within a period of one month from the date
of presentation of a certified copy of
judgment and order. This court is issuing
such direction as the petitioner is a poor
school teacher aged about 76 years of age
and as such early disposal of the dispute is
necessary."

6. In aforesaid order, there is a
reference of a Circular dated 04.12.1982
and for reference, said Circular is quoted
below :-

"प्रसशिर् मुक्त लाभ का आदेश
(2)/6751 04/13 10(1)/0203

सशव दत्त बत्रवेदी
संयुक्त सशिा ननदेशक (प्रसशिर्)
सशिा ननदेशालय, उत्तर प्रदेश
इलाहाबाद ददनांक ददसमबर, 4, 1982

वप्रय श्री ननगम,

कृपया अपने प० शा० पत्रांक
जी-1/2453/81-82 ददनांककत 27.12.81 एवं जी-
1/1524-82-83 ददनांक 07.10.82 का अवलोकन
करने का कष्ट करे जो सहायता प्राप्त जूननयर
हाईस्कूलो एवं प्राइमरी स्कूलो में कायतरत
अप्रसशक्षित अध्यापक/अध्यावपका को प्रसशिर्
योग्यता से मुण्क्त प्रदान करने के समबन्ध में
है।

उपयुतक्त सन्दसभत पत्रो द्वारा
की गई ण्जज्ञासाओ के समबन्ध में मुझे आपको
ननमनवत सूथचत करने की ननदेश हुआ है-

1
ण्जन
अप्रसशक्षित
अध्यापको/अध्यावपकाओ
की
अववरल
सेवा
अवथध 30-6-1978 को 10 वषत या इससे अथधक
पूरी हो चुकी हो, उन्हे प्रसशिर् से मुण्क्त का
लाभ1-7-75 में देय होगा, भले ही आप द्वारा
मुण्क्त प्रदान ककये जाने से समबण्न्धत आदेश
उक्त नतथर् के बाद ही ननगत ककये जाये।

2
राजाज्ञा
संख्या/2186/15(13)/1499(7)/17 ददनांक 20-7-79
एवं राजाज्ञा/2104 (1)/15 (13) /1499 (ii) / 11
ददनांक नवमबर 1, 1971 द्वारा प्रदत्त प्रसशिर्
से मुण्क्त की सुववधा अशासकीय मान्यता प्राप्त
प्राइमरी
तर्ा
जूननयर
हाईस्कूलो
के
प्राधानाध्यापको को भी देय होगी। ककन्तु इस
समबन्ध में जो आदेश आप द्वारा ननगत ककये
जाये, इसमे इस बात का स्पष्ट उल्लेि कर
ददया जाना चादहए कक प्रसशिर् से प्रदान की
गई मुण्क्त का आशय, उन्हे प्रसशक्षित अध्यापक
मानना
मात्र
है।
प्रधान
अध्यापक/प्रधान
5 All. Smt. Maya Vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Baghpat & Ors.
909
अध्यावपका के पद पर उनकी ननयुण्क्त/पदोन्ननत
तभी मान्य होगी जब वे अथधसूचना संख्या
8988 पन्रह-20(11/72) ददनांक फरवरी 13,1978
द्वारा ववज्ञावपत तर्ा 13 फरवरी 1979 से
प्रभावी उ०प्र० असाशककय मान्यता प्राप्त बेससक
(जूननयर हाईस्कूल) अध्यापकों की भती और
सेवा ननयमावली 1978 द्वारा ननधातररत शौक्षिक
योग्यता ...... बाद प्रनतबन्ध भी पूरी करते हो।

3
ऐसे
अध्यापको/अध्यावपकाओ
ण्जनकी सेवा अवथध में व्यवधान हो के प्रकरर्
ननदेशालय को वववरर् सदहत प्रसशिर् हेतु भेजे
जाये तर्ा ननदेशालय की सहमनत प्राप्त होने के
पश्चात ही उनको प्रसशिर् से मुण्क्त से
समबंथधत आदेश आप द्वारा ककये जावे।
भवदीय
(सशव दत्त बत्रवेदी)"

7. In aforesaid circumstances, claim
of
petitioner's
husband
was
again
considered, however, by order dated
05.03.2008, it was again rejected on same
ground on which earlier order was passed
though it was later on set aside by this
Court. For reference, relevant part of order
dated 05.03.2008 is quoted below :-

"वववेचना

श्री शालगराम के द्वारा प्राप्त कराये
गये असभलेिों के परीिर् से स्पष्ट होता है
कक-

1. श्री सालगराम द्वारा एक प्रमार्
पत्र उदूत में सलखित प्रस्तुत ककया है ण्जसका
अनुवाद कराया गया। उसके अऩुसार इनकी
जन्मनतथर् 03.07.1930 है, जो दजात चार (04)
पास की है तर्ा ददनांक 13.05.1947 की सदर
बागपत से जारी ककया गया है।

2. जू० हाईस्कूल परीिा 1952 में
उत्तीर्त होने का प्रमार् पत्र प्रस्तुत ककया है।

3. 01.10.1957 से नवमबर 1963 तक
सहायता प्राप्त पाठशाला क्रमअलीपुर गढी
ववकास िेत्र बागपत में कायत करने का प्रमार्
पत्र प्रस्तुत ककया है। ककस नतथर् तक कायत
ककया है इसका कोई उल्लेि नहीं है। यह प्रमार्
पत्र मान्य नहीं है क्योंकक प्रमार् पत्र ण्जस
संस्र्ा में कायत ककया है उस संस्र्ा द्वारा जारी
नहीं ककया गया है। प्रधान अध्यापक प्रा०पा०
ववलोचुपरा द्वारा ददनांक 10.04.1970 को जारी
ककया गया है ण्जसका कोई समबन्ध नहीं है।
सिम अथधकारी से प्रनतहस्तािररत भी नहीं है,
वेतन एवं भत्तो का भी उल्लेि नहीं है।

4. वादी द्वारा उक्त अवथध में 15
रूपये प्रनतमाह वेतन प्राप्त करना बताया है।
वेतन प्राप्त करने का कोई रण्जस्टर, बैंक पास
बुक आदद प्रस्तुत नहीं ककया गया। ग्राम प्रधान
का प्रमार् पत्र प्रस्तुत ककया है। ववद्यालय
प्रधान अध्यापक का वेतन देने समबन्धी कोई
प्रमार् पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं ककया गया।

5. उक्त ववद्यालय में पी.एफ. आदद
कटने समबन्धी कोई भी प्रमार् पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं
ककया है.

6. ननयुण्क्त पत्र के अऩुसार ददनांक
19.11.1963 को प्रा० पा० कमतअलीपुर गढी में
कायतभार ग्रहर् करने का प्रमार् पत्र प्रस्तुत
ककया गया है।

7. सथचव, उ०प्र० बेससक सशिा पररषद
के पत्र सं० बे०सश०प० / प्रसश०मु०/ 2415724215/85-86 ददनांक 06.09.1985 के अऩुसार
ण्जन अध्यापकों ने ननरन्तर सेवा 15 वषत पूर्त
कर ली हो और ननधातररत शैक्षिक योग्यता रिते
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
हो बी०टी०सी० प्रसशिर् से छूट प्रदान करने के
ननदेश प्रदान ककये गये है।

8. ण्जला बेससक सशिा अथधकारी मेरठ
के पत्रांक ई० (1) 2339-40/91-92 ददनांक
23.10.91 द्वारा बेससक सशिा पररषद के पत्र
ददनांक 16.09.85 के अनुक्रम में प्रसशिर् से
मुण्क्त प्रदान की गयी है, जो त्रुदट पूर्त है क्योकक
19.1163 से पूवत की सेवायें मान्य नहीं है तर्ा
ननदेशों के अनुसार शैक्षिक योग्यता भी पूर्त नहीं
करते है। कम से कम शैक्षिक योग्यता
इडटरमीडियेट या समि होनी चादहये।

9. श्री शालगराम की ददनांक 25.07.73
को मान्य सेवाये 9 वषत 8 माह 6 ददन होती है।
जो 15 वषत से अत्यथधक कम है।
ननर्तय

श्री शालगराम अप्रसशक्षित (सेवाननवृत्त)
स०अ० प्रा०पा० क्यामपुर की मान्य ननयुण्क्त
नतथर् 15.11.63 है। सथचव बेसशक सशिा पररषद
इलाहाबाद के आदेश ददनांक 16.09.85 के
अऩुसार 25.07.73 को कुल मान्य अप्रसशक्षित
सेवाए 9 वषत 8 माह 6 ददन है जो 15 वषत से
कम है। ननधातररत नतथर् को शैक्षिक योग्यता भी
पूर्त नहीं करते है। सी.पी.एफ./जी.पी.एफ.
योजना में भी सण्ममसलत नहीं है। ननधातररत शते
पूर्त नहीं करते इससलए ननयमों के अऩ्तगत
पेंशन के अथधकारी नहीं है।

अतः श्री शालगराम का प्रत्यावेदन
ननस्ताररत करते हुए ननरस्त ककया जाता है।"

8. Petitioner's husband thereafter filed
a Contempt Petition that his claim was not
considered by order dated 05.03.2008 in
terms of earlier order dated 25.01.2000
passed by this Court.

9. Contempt application was finally
decided on 21.11.2012 whereby notices
were discharged and liberty was granted to
assail the correctness of the order dated
05.03.2008.

10. Before order in contempt
proceedings was passed, unfortunately,
petitioner's husband died on 19.04.2011.

11. In aforesaid circumstances,
petitioner has approached this Court by
way of filing present writ petition with a
prayer to quash order dated 05.03.2008,
with a further prayer to accord her husband
pension and accordingly to grant family
pension to her.

12. Petitioner has declared her age to
be 73 years when this writ petition was
filed in the year 2013, as such, today she
must be around 85 years old.

13. Petitioner's husband has fought a
very long legal battle. He was substantively
appointed
on
19.11.1963.
Earlier
appointment being not against substantive
post cannot be included in his service as
well as alleged training could not be
considered to be a training for purpose of
appointment of teachers. Petitioner has
worked from 19.11.1963 to 30.06.1991 i.e.
about 27 years and thereafter he was before
this Court firstly in 1999, secondly in 2000
and even after impugned order was passed
on 05.03.2008, he was before this Court in
contempt proceedings which was disposed
of vide order dated 21.11.2012 after his
death.

14. Therefore, petitioner's husband
was before this Court for almost 12 years
and thereafter her wife is before this Court
by way of filing present writ petition in the
5 All. Smt. Maya Vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Baghpat & Ors.
911
year 2013 and she is waiting for a just
decision for last more than 12 years.

15. Sri Vishnu Gupta, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Siya Ram Sahu,
learned counsel for petitioner, on basis of
aforesaid undisputed facts, has placed
heavy reliance on a Government Order
dated 04.12.1982 which was directed to be
considered
when
by
order
dated
04.01.2008, second writ petition filed by
petitioner's husband was allowed.

16. Learned Senior Advocate has
further
submitted
that
aforesaid
Government Order dated 04.12.1982 was
not
considered
and
again
claim
of
petitioner's husband was rejected on the
basis of subsequent Government Order
dated 16.09.1985 as well as it was wrongly
held that petitioner's husband was not
qualified for appointment on post of
Assistant Teacher since he has not passed
Intermediate examination. For reference,
contents of G.O. dated 16.09.1985 are
quoted below :-

"उपयुतक्त
ववषयक
कृपया
अपने
पत्रांक सं० 2837/88/भसश०मु०/85-86 ददनांक
05.08.85 का सन्दभत ले जो उक्त अध्यावपका
को प्रसशिर् से मुण्क्त प्रदान करने में है।

इस समबन्ध में आपसे यह कहना है
कक उप सथचव उ०प्र० शासन सशिा-13 अनुभाग
लिनऊ के पत्र संख्या 1274/15/19-1499/6/61
ददनांक 10.09.73 में उण्ल्लखित राजाज्ञा संख्या
1386/15/13/1450/56/73 ददनांक 30.05.73 के
द्वारा राज्यपाल महोदय ने जुलाई 25, 1973 को
ण्जन अध्यापक अध्यावपकाओं ने 15 वषत की
ननरन्तर सेवा पूर्त कर ली हो और उक्त ददनांक
को ननधातररत शैक्षिक योग्यता रिते हो की भी
टी०सी० प्रसशिर् से छूट प्रदान कर दी है।
इसके सलये ककसी अथधकारी के आदेश की
आवश्यकता नहीं है। इसमें आपको केवल इतना
ही देिना है कक उक्त नतथर् में उसकी 15 वषत
की ननरन्तर सेवा पूर्त हो चुकी हो तर्ा
ननधातररत शैक्षिक योग्यता रिते हो।

कृपया शासन के ददये गये ननदेशों के
अऩुरूप ननधातररत शैक्षिक योग्यता रिने वाले
ऐसे सशिक/सशक्षिका ण्जन्होने 25.07.72 को 15
वषत की सेवा पूर्त कर ली हो प्रसशिर् से मुक्त
समझे जायेंगे तर्ा उन्हे दद० 25.07.72 के
उपरान्त प्रसशक्षित वेतनक्रम ददया जाये।"

17. It was a communication in regard
to case of another person wherein a
reference was given of G.O. dated
30.05.1973 which was basis of rejection of
claim of petitioner's husband in first round
of litigation, therefore, it was wrongly
relied upon.

18. Learned Senior Advocate has
placed reliance on judgments of this
Court in State of U.P. and others vs.
Rosalia Minj Sohanta (Smt.) and
another, 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2513;
Shaukat Ali Khan vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2024 (9) ADJ 797; Sarla
Srivastava
vs.
DIOS,
Allahabad,
1998(1) AWC 250.

19. Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned
counsel for respondents has supported
impugned order and placed reliance on an
order dated 25.07.1973, however, he has
failed to explain why not the G.O. dated
04.12.1982 was taken note despite an order
was passed by this Court with a specific
direction to consider claim of petitioner's
husband in view of sai G.O.
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. As referred above, it is a case of
long legal battle. Claim of petitioner's
husband was directed to grant exemption
from training on basis of G.O. dated
25.07.1973 which requires that there must
be 15 years of regular service as on cut off
date i.e. 25.07.1973 and undisputedly,
petitioner's husband has served only less
than 10 years, therefore, no advantage
could be granted of said G.O.

21. However, by way of a subsequent
letter dated 04.12.1982, exemption from
training could be granted to teachers who
have served regularly for 10 years i.e. up to
30.06.1978 and in given set of facts, since
petitioner's husband was appointed on
19.11.1963, he has served about 14 years
and 6 months as on cut off date i.e.
30.06.1978, therefore, it completely applies
to case of petitioner's husband and
exemption from training could have been
granted, however, its effect was not taken
note of.

22. As referred above, G.O. dated
04.12.1982 was completely ignored by
concerned
State-respondents
and
subsequent G.O. dated 01.06.1985 was
considered which has referred earlier G.O.
dated
30.05.1973
without
considering
subsequent G.O. dated 04.12.1982.

23. In aforesaid circumstances, Court
proceeds to consider whether petitioner's
husband
was
qualified
or
not.
The
petitioner's husband was appointed on
19.11.1963. His qualification was 'Middle'
i.e. Class- VIII and he was considered to be
unqualified on a ground that in terms of
relevant Rules of 1978, he was required to
be 12th qualified.

24. In this regard, Court is of
considered view that admittedly when
petitioner was appointed in the year 1963,
there
was
no
specific
provision
of
minimum qualification for appointment of
teacher. In 1978, when Rules were
enforced, there was no requirement for
teachers'
appointed
earlier,
to
pass
minimum qualification except to get a
training certificate and subsequently, there
are Government Orders, where exemption
from training was also provided subject to
period of service.

25. In aforesaid circumstances,
impugned order dated 05.03.2008 is set
aside and its legal consequence will follow.

26. As referred above, petitioner's
husband died in the year 2011 after his
retirement in the year 1991. Thus, benefit
of pension cannot be granted or it could be
granted only on notional basis. Now the
question left is to grant family pension to
present petitioner who is fighting present
legal battle for last 12 years.

27. At present, petitioner must be
aged about 85 years and at this stage, to
determine amount of family pension would
be difficult and probably she may require
a lumpsum amount to survive, therefore,
in the interest of justice and after
considering
aforesaid
facts
and
circumstances,
this
writ
petition
is
disposed of with a direction that a
lumpsum amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rs.
Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) shall be
paid to petitioner in her bank account
only, after due verification and for that,
concerned
State-respondent
will
communicate her in accordance with law.

28. This order is passed in above
referred peculiar circumstances, therefore,
it shall not be treated as a precedence.
----------
5 All. Naipal Singh Vs. U.P. Housing & Development Board & Anr.
913
(2025) 5 ILRA 913
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 2000885 of 2005

Naipal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Housing & Development Board & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ravindra Kumar, Gaurav Mehrotra, K.N.
Vishwakarma, Rani Singh, Ravindra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
R.K. Mehrotra, Anurag Srivastava, Mahesh
Chandra, Manoj Singh, O P Srivastava,
Puneet Chandra

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Principles of Natural Justice - Enquiry vitiated
for non-supply of documents, non-holding of
oral enquiry, and ignoring reply of delinquent -
Punishment of dismissal at fag end of retirement
- Disproportionate.

Held: Departmental enquiry must be conducted
strictly in accordance with prescribed procedure
under Regulation 27 of the 1966 Regulations.
Non-supply of relied upon documents, nonfixing of date for oral enquiry, and failure to
allow cross-examination vitiates proceedings.
Where enquiry officer exonerated the delinquent
from 6 of 8 charges, yet disciplinary authority
imposed major penalty of dismissal without
dealing with explanation to the two partially
proved charges, the punishment order is illegal
and disproportionate. Since the employee died
during pendency of writ petition, no purpose
would be served by remand. Dismissal order
quashed. Widow of petitioner entitled to all
service and retiral benefits with 8% interest,
rising to 12% penal interest in case of default.

Writ Petition Allowed.
Case Law Discussed:

1. Bhagat Ram Vs St. of H.P., (1983) 2 SCC 442.

2. Ranjit Thakur Vs U.O.i., (1987) 4 SCC 611.

3. U.O.I. Vs Giriraj Sharma, 1994 Supp (3) SCC
755.

4. S.K. Giri Vs Home Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 519.

5. B.C. Chaturvedi Vs Union of India, (1995) 6
SCC 749.

6. Bishan Singh Vs St. of Pun., (1996) 10 SCC
461.

7. Bhaskar Parashari Vs Board of Directors,
Aligarh Gramin Bank, (2005) 5 AWC 4845 (All).

8. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank,
(2009) 2 SCC 570.

9. St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2
SCC 772.

10. Nirmala J. Jhala Vs St. of Gujarat, (2013) 4
SCC 301.

11. Satyendra Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3325.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra assisted
by Ms. Rani Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned
counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The order under challenge is a
dismissal order dated 29.7.2004 (contained
as Annexure no. 1) passed by the opposite
party no. 2, i.e. Housing Commissioner,
U.P. Housing and Development Board,
Lucknow.

3. Before adverting to the facts and
merits of this case it is to indicate that the