# Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 340
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-01-29
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 28679 of 2009
- **Bench:** Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-krishna-prasad-yadav-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43148
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Rules,
1964-Rule
4(b) Rule 16-claim of Post Retiral
benefit-working as teacher in Primary
section
attached
to
intermediate
institution-denial
in
grab
of
G.O.
20.01.2004-held primary section being
integral part of Institution-taken grant in
aid 01.10.89-in view of Rule 4(b)-
primary section being integral part of
intermediate-entitled for pension-G.O.
Relied
by
state
already
quasheddirection to take into account total
length of service for qualifying period for
pension-issued.
Held: Para-8
It is further relevant to note here that
the Primary Section was an integral part
of the Institution and the teachers
attached thereto could not have been
discriminated
for
the
purposes
of
payment of pension merely because they
came
on
to
grant-in-aid
list
w.e.f.
1.10.1989. In the opinion of the Court,
there is no provision under the Rules
1964 which curtails the computation of
length of qualifying service to the time
when the Primary Sections became or
came under the grant-in-aid list.
Case Law discussed:
W.P. No. 17819 of 2007; .W.P. No. 17033 of
2012; W.P. No. 75746 of 2006.

## Text

340
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
question on the ground that it violated
Article 25 of the Constitution in view of
the law laid down by this court in Sarla
Mudgal v. Union of India[1]. He further
submitted that the High Court was
justified in holding that the punishment of
removal could not be held to be
shockingly disproportionate to the charge
and did not call for any interference.
10. We have given due consideration
to the rival submissions. We are of the
view that no interference is called for by
this Court in the matter." .
17. Bearing in mind the above, this
Court finds itself unable to accept the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner. The bane of
child marriage has been sought to be
removed by our country for centuries.
Legislation to end this cursed custom was
enacted as far back as 1929 in the form of
the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929
and
subsequently
replaced
by
the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
The custom not only amounts to child
abuse, it deprives the girl child of basic
human rights. A member of the police
force is charged with the duty of
maintaining the law, upholding the
standards
of
a
civil
society.
The
punishment, viewed in light of the above
facts, does not shock the conscience of
this Court warranting substitution of the
choice made by the administrator.
18. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Writ A No. 28679 of 2009
Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav & Ors. .Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Sri K.K.M
Tripathi
U.P. State Aided Educational Institution
Employees Contributory Provident FundInsurance-Pension
Rules,
1964-Rule
4(b) Rule 16-claim of Post Retiral
benefit-working as teacher in Primary
section
attached
to
intermediate
institution-denial
in
grab
of
G.O.
20.01.2004-held primary section being
integral part of Institution-taken grant in
aid 01.10.89-in view of Rule 4(b)-
primary section being integral part of
intermediate-entitled for pension-G.O.
Relied
by
state
already
quasheddirection to take into account total
length of service for qualifying period for
pension-issued.
Held: Para-8
It is further relevant to note here that
the Primary Section was an integral part
of the Institution and the teachers
attached thereto could not have been
discriminated
for
the
purposes
of
payment of pension merely because they
came
on
to
grant-in-aid
list
w.e.f.
1.10.1989. In the opinion of the Court,
there is no provision under the Rules
1964 which curtails the computation of
length of qualifying service to the time
when the Primary Sections became or
came under the grant-in-aid list.
Case Law discussed:
W.P. No. 17819 of 2007; .W.P. No. 17033 of
2012; W.P. No. 75746 of 2006.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)
1 All]
 Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
341
1. This petition has been preferred
seeking the following primary relief:
"a writ, order or direction of suitable
nature commanding the respondents to
take into account the entire length of
service of the petitioners computed from
the date of their initial appointment for
purposes of computation of the retiral
benefits of the petitioners and not to limit
such consideration to length of service
either subsequent to 1.10.1989 alone or
subsequent to 28.4.2004 alone."
2. Briefly stated the dispute arises in
the
following
backdrop.
All
the
petitioners were appointed as Assistant
Teachers in the Primary Sections of the
Educational Institutions represented by
their
respective
Committees
of
Management. The Primary Sections of
these colleges came on to the grant-in-aid
list issued by the State Government on
6.9.1989. As is evident from the said list
and the orders of the Government, the
effective date for these colleges and their
Primary Sections coming on to the grantin-aid list was 1.10.1989. All the
petitioners herein were in fact, working in
these Institutions much prior to that
starting from 1964-72. It would be
apposite to notice here that while the
petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have attained
the age of superannuation and retired in
2006-07-08, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8
and 9 retired on different dates between
2006-2013, the petitioner No. 4 retired
from
service
on
30.06.2014
while
remaining petitioners are to retire in 2015
and 2016. These facts which are stated by
the petitioners in Paragraphs 8, 10 and 11
of the writ petition are not disputed by the
contesting
State-respondents.
The
grievance of all these petitioners is the
non-payment
of
pension
under
the
provisions of the U.P. State Aided
Educational
Institution
Employees'
Contributory Provident Fund-InsurancePension
Rules,
1964.
These
Rules
admittedly came into force on 1.10.1964
and in terms thereof the employees were
entitled to be provided pension computed
on the basis of the total length of service
put in by them. The dispute itself arises
pursuant to a Government Order dated
20th January, 2004 and the stand of the
State that the benefit under the Rules
aforementioned would be permissible to
be sanctioned and paid to these teachers
only from the date of promulgation of the
said Government Order. Resultantly, the
total length of qualifying service which
forms the basis for computation and grant
of family pension becomes effected and it
is in view of the same that the petitioners
have approached this Court.
3. Sri Siddharatha Khare, learned
counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that all the petitioners were in service in
the Primary Section of the Institutions in
question much prior to the date of
promulgation of the Government Order.
He submitted that the Primary Section
being taken on to the grant-in-aid list
w.e.f.
1.10.1989
clearly
made
the
petitioners eligible to obtain benefits
falling under the Rules 1964. He
submitted that the benefit of the statutory
Rule could not be negated or curtailed in
any manner by the Government Order
dated 20th January, 2004. Elaborating his
submissions Shri Khare has further relied
upon the judgment rendered by a learned
Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition
No. 17819 of 2007; Mangali Prasad
Varma Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Considering a similar issue the learned
Single Judge was pleased to hold that the
benefit of past service rendered by the
342
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners could not be curtailed by the
Government Order dated 20th January,
2004. It was held that the so called cut off
date could not be kept as 20th January,
2004 inasmuch as pension was not being
granted by virtue of the Government
Order but that the same was a right which
flowed from the provisions of the Rules
1964.
4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the
other hand, relying upon the Affidavit
filed in opposition to this petition has
submitted that the Primary Sections came
on to the grant-in-aid list only w.e.f.
1.10.1989 and that the provisions for
payment of pension to teachers employed
in such Primary Sections was provision
for only vide Government Order dated
20th
January,2004.
He
has
further
contended that the provisions of the 1964
Rules themselves became applicable to
the petitioners only once the Institutions
came on to the grant-in-aid list i.e. from
1.10.1989 and therefore, the pension
could not have been paid to the petitioners
computing their services rendered prior
thereto.
5. It would be relevant to point out
here, before proceeding to the merits of
the rival contentions raised by the parties,
that the Committees of Management were
put to notice by an order of this Court but
have failed to file any Affidavits in
opposition
to
this
petition.
The
Government Order around which centers
the present controversy is mentioned in
the Affidavits of parties as dated 28th
January, 2004. However, parties were
agreed that the same was a typographical
error and that the correct date of the
Government Order was 20th January,
2004. I proceed now to consider the
contentions of parties.
6. It would be apposite to refer to
some of the salient provisions of the
Rules 1964.
Rule 3 reads as under:
"3. These rules shall apply to
permanent employees serving in State
aided educational institutions of the
following categories run either by a Local
Body or by a Private Management and
recognised by a competent authority as
such for purposes of payment of grant-inaid:
(1) Primary Schools;
(2) Junior High Schools;
(3) Higher Secondary Schools;
(4) Degree Colleges;
(5) Training Colleges."
Rule 17 reads as under:
"17. An employee shall be eligible
for pension on--
(i) retirement on attaining the age of
superannuation or on the expiry of
extension
granted
beyond
the
superannuation age;
(ii)
voluntary
retirement
after
completing 25 years of qualifying service;
(iii) retirement before the age of
superannuation
under
a
medical
certificate of permanent incapacity for
further service; and
(iv) discharge due to abolition of
post or closure of an institution due to
withdrawal of recognition or other valid
causes.
Notes.--(1) The age of compulsory
retirement of an employee shall be such
as prescribed in the relevant rules
applicable to him.
The date of superannuation shall be
reckoned from the date of birth of an
employee as entered in his Service Book
or other records. In case of the year of
birth only is known, but not the month, the
first July of the year shall be taken as the
1 All]
 Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
343
date of birth. Similarly when both the year
and the month of birth are known, but not
the date, the16th of the month shall be
taken as the date of birth."
Rule 18 reads as under:
"18. The amount of pension that may
be granted shall be determined by the
length of qualifying service, vide Rule 31
below. Fractions of a year shall not be
taken into account in the calculation of
pension under these rules. Pension shall
be calculated to the nearest multiple of 5
paisa:
(a) The full pension admissible under
these rules will not be sanctioned unless
the service rendered has been considered
satisfactory and is approved by the
Controlling Authority.
(b) If the service has not been
thoroughly satisfactory the authority
sanctioning the pension may order such
reduction in the amount as it thinks
proper."
Rule 19 reads as under:
"19. (a) Service will not count for
pension unless the employee holds a
substantive
post
on
a
permanent
establishment.
(b)..................
(c)......................
(d)......................
(e)...................."
7. It is apparent that the grant of
pension is squarely covered by the
provisions of the statutory Rules referred
to above. The said rules in unequivocal
terms provide that they shall apply to the
permanent employees serving in State
Aided Educational Institutions run either
by a Local Body or by a Private
Management
and
recognized
by
a
Competent Authority as such for purposes
of payment of grant-in-aid.
8. The category of Institutions
referred in Rule 3 clearly include Primary
Sections. It is the undisputed position that
the Institutions in which the petitioners
were serving had Primary Sections and
even though run by Private Management
were recognized for the purposes of
payment of grant-in-aid. These Rules did
not prescribe a cut off date for the
purposes of a person becoming eligible
for grant of pension thereunder. In fact,
Rule 4(b) clearly throws light on this
aspect of the matter when it grants an
option to existing members in permanent
service to opt and elect to be governed by
these Rules. The Rules themselves came
into effect from 1.10.1964 and would,
therefore, be applicable to all thereof.
Insofar as the aspect of deposit of
management contribution as envisaged
under the said Rule is concerned, this
Court had already struck down the cut of
date of 31st March, 2002 as prescribed by
the Government Order dated 26.07.2001
in Smt. Shanti Solanki Vs. State of U.P.
and Others passed in W.P. No. 75746 of
2006 and the said decision has been
consistently followed in various other
cases decided by this Court including
W.P. No. 17033 of 2012, Lal Chand
Singh Vs. State of U.P. And Others.
About the payment of pension being
governed solely by the provisions of the
Rules 1964, this Court is of the opinion
that its applicability could not have been
eclipsed or in any manner straddled over
by the Government Order dated 20th
January, 2004. This Court is in agreement
with the judgment rendered by a learned
Single Judge in Mangali Prasad (supra) on
the issue that merely because there was
344
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
delay in issuing appropriate clarifications
with regard to the applicability of the
Rules to Primary Sections, the same could
not have denuded the petitioners of their
right to claim pension under the Rules
1964. It is further relevant to note here
that the Primary Section was an integral
part of the Institution and the teachers
attached thereto could not have been
discriminated for the purposes of payment
of pension merely because they came on
to grant-in-aid list w.e.f. 1.10.1989. In the
opinion of the Court, there is no provision
under the Rules 1964 which curtails the
computation of length of qualifying
service to the time when the Primary
Sections became or came under the grantin-aid list.
9. Accordingly and in view of the
above, this writ petition is allowed and it
is accordingly held that the petitioners
shall be entitled to pension under the
provisions of the Rules 1964. The
management contribution required to be
deposited may be so made within a period
of two months and thereafter the
respondents shall proceed to compute the
pension of the petitioners taking into
account the total length of qualifying
service rendered by them and in light of
the observations made hereinabove. The
pension so computed and becoming liable
to be paid to the petitioners from their
respective dates of superannuation will be
paid within a period of two months from
the date of deposit of management
contribution and the arrears shall carry
interest of 12 per cent per annum.
10. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed in terms indicated above.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
Application U/s 482 No. 29717 of 2013
Kahkashan Begum & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp.Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Shabana Nizam
Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Shibli Naseem
Cr.P.C. Section 482-Quashing of criminal
proceeding-offence u/s 323, 384, 504,
506 IPC-on ground of misuse of process
of law and malicious prosecution -as a
counter blast to criminal case pending
against respondent 2-admittedly
the
applicant and respondent 2 are husband
wife-matrimonial
dispute
going
onmediation failed-all allegations general
in
nature-not
corroborated
by
independent evidence-even if accepted
to be true-not disclose any offenceentire proceeding including summoning
order quashed.
Held: Para-7
Considered the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
It is admitted case that applicant no.1
and op. party no.2 are husband and wife
who were married to each other in the
year 2006 according to Muslim traditions
and there appears to have been some
bitterness between them after marriage
and she was being tortured by her
husband opp. party no.2 and her in-laws for
demand of a colour T.V. and a motorcycle
from applicant no.1 and her parents, which
could not be fulfilled and on account of
which harassment which was made by opp.
party
no.2
and
his
family
members
physically and mentally, the applicant no.1
who was carrying a child in her womb
became
so
much