# Virendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 1
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-01-09
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 375 of 2008
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41004
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter III Regulation 21-benefit of
academic
session-person
working
as
Adhoc
Principal-achieve
the
age
of
superannuation-during period of availing
benefit of academic session-cannot be
treated as Adhoc Principal.

Held: Para 3

The benefit of continuing to avail the
benefit of the academic session after
attaining the age of superannuation is
not applicable for the appointment on
the post of ad-hoc Principal.
Case law discussed:
2003(3) AWC 1709, 2007(1)UPLBEC 479

## Text

1 All] Virendra Kumar Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Writ Petition No. 375 of 2008

Virendra Kumar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. Satyanshu Ojha
Sri. Radha Kant Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. Ashok Khare
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter III Regulation 21-benefit of
academic
session-person
working
as
Adhoc
Principal-achieve
the
age
of
superannuation-during period of availing
benefit of academic session-cannot be
treated as Adhoc Principal.

Held: Para 3

The benefit of continuing to avail the
benefit of the academic session after
attaining the age of superannuation is
not applicable for the appointment on
the post of ad-hoc Principal.
Case law discussed:
2003(3) AWC 1709, 2007(1)UPLBEC 479

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.K.Ojha, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok
Khare,
the
learned
senior
counsel
appearing for respondent no.5. Since no
factual controversy is involved in the
present writ petition, the same is being
disposed of at the admission stage itself
without calling for a counter affidavit.

2. The respondent no.5 was
appointed as an adhoc Principal in the
institution managed by respondent no.4.
The said respondent reached the age of
superannuation and the Committee of
Management resolved to appoint the
petitioner as an ad-hoc Principal. The
committee of management forwarded the
papers to the District Inspector of Schools
for, approval. The District Inspector of
Schools by the impugned order directed
the Committee of Management to permit
respondent no.5 to continue as an ad-hoc
Principal till the end of the academic
session, i.e., till 30.6.2008. The petitioner,
being the senior most teacher and being
entitled to be appointed as an ad-hoc
Principal has filed the present writ
petition.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the controversy
involved in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by two Division Bench
judgments, namely, in the case of Raja
Ram Chaudhary vs. Satya Narain
Gupta and others, 2003(3) AWC 1709,
and in the matter of Hari Om Tatsat
Brahma Shukla vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2007(1)UPLBEC 479, wherein it
has been held that a teacher continuing till
the end of the academic session is not
entitled to continue as an ad-hoc Principal
after attaining the age of superannuation.
The benefit of continuing to avail the
benefit of the academic session after
attaining the age of superannuation is not
applicable for the appointment on the post
of ad-hoc Principal. On the other hand,
the learned counsel for the respondent
no.5 made a feeble attempt to distinguish
the aforesaid judgments contending that
the said judgments pertain to the post of
Principal in the Degree College, in which
the Rules and Regulations were different
2 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
from that of the post of Principal in an
Intermediate college.

4. In my opinion, the submission
made by the learned counsel for the
opposite
party
is
bereft
of
merit.
Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the
Regulations
framed
under
the
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 relates
to the extension of service which reads as
under:-

"21.
Superannuation
age
of
Principal, Headmaster, Teacher and
other employees would be 60 years. If
above said superannuation age of any
Principal, Headmaster and Teacher falls
on any date in between 2nd July and 30th
June, except in the condition when he
himself, before two months of the date of
superannuation, furnishes in writing the
information for not seeking extension of
service, extension of service upto 30th
June shall be deemed to be conferred on
him so that after summer vacation,
substitute can be arranged in the month of
July. In addition to this, extension of
service could be granted only in such
special cases, which may be decided by
the State Government.
If date of superannuation of any
clerk or fourth class employee falls in the
middle of any month, his extension of
service would be deemed to be given up to
the last date of that month. But if the date
of appointment of any employee falls on
the first date of any month, he shall be
retired on the last date of the preceding
month."

The
said
provision
has
been
interpreted in the case of Hari Om Tatsat
Brahma Shukla (supra), in which the
Court held-

"We have considered the submissions
and perused the record. In so far as the
preposition that when a teacher is
continuing till the end of academic
session after attaining the age of
superannuation he is not entitled for any
appointment on a post other than his
substantive is well settled. After attaining
the age of superannuation neither higher
post can be conferred nor an incumbent
can claim promotion on a higher post.
The preposition will both apply for
appointment on substantive basis or
appointment on ad hoc basis. The ad hoc
appointment under Section 18 of the U.P.
Act No.5 of 1982 is the appointment as a
Principal on a higher post in a different
grade. During the period a person is
continuing to avail the benefit of
academic session after attaining the age
of superannuation he is not entitled for
appointment even on ad hoc basis. The
said preposition finds full support for
Division Bench judgments reported in
2000(1)E.S.C.
645,
Committee
of
Management, Jagdish Saran Rajvansi
Kanya Inter College and another vs. Joint
Director of Education; 2003(2)E.S.C.
956, Raja Ram Chaudhary vs. Satya
Narain Gupta and others and Division
Bench judgment of R.C.Gupta (Dr.) vs.
State of U.P. and others, (2002)1
UPLBEC 767."

Similarly in the case of Raja Ram
Chaudhary (supra), the Court held-

"The
contention
is
totally
misconceived. The purpose of extension
till the end of the academic session after
attaining the age of superannuation is
only to secure the benefit in favour of the
students and the institution as clarified by
this Court in the aforesaid two decisions.
1 All] Smt. Qamar Jahan V. State of U.P. and others
3
The fact that the appellant has
already
attained
the
age
of
superannuation is not in dispute. Further,
the fact that question of seniority has not
yet been determined and on account of the
appellant having attained the age of
superannuation, it has lost all its
significance is also not disputed. These
additional factors also do not justify an
interference in the discretion exercised by
the learned single judge."

5. The ratio of the decision of the
aforesaid two judgments is squarely
applicable to the present facts and
circumstances of the case.

6. In view of the aforesaid the
impugned order cannot be sustained and
is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
The District Inspector of Schools is
directed to pass consequential orders on
the resolution sent by the committee of
management within two weeks from the
date of presentation of a certified copy of
the order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53062 of 2006

Smt. Qamar Jahan

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dinesh Chandra Tripathi
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226, Art. 21Service Law Revised family pensionpetitioner's husband died after 31 years
satisfactory service-1991 family pension
fixed Rs.966/-while in Moti Lal Agarwal
case-family pension should not be less
than
Rs.1275/-respondent
itself
accepted
the
claim-only
reason
of
financial security can not be groundonce the court adjudicated in rem
considering particular legal aspect-body
expected to implement the same forcing
the individual to approach the court
amounts
multiplicity
of
litigationnecessary direction issued with 8%
interest.

Held: Para 14 & 17

Thus, retiral benefits are not bounty but
a right earned by the employer and being
deferred wages payable to a Government
servant in lieu of considerable length of
service rendered by an employee to the
employer cannot be denied on the
ground of financial scarcity or lack of
funds.

Once on a particular legal aspect dealing
with service condition of the employees,
the matter is decided by a Court of law,
such body is expected to implement the
same
without
forcing
its
all
the
employees similarly placed to approach
the Court individually as that would
amount not only to multiply litigation
wasting
avoidable
public
time
and
money but would also be against all
spirit of a 'Welfare State' with which the
respondents are expected to work.
Case law discussed:
1996 (2) ESC-612, 1983 (1) SCC-305, AIR
2003 SC-2189, AIR 1983 SC-803, AIR 1958
SC-578, AIR 1963 SC-1332, 2003 (1) SCC-184,
W.P. 33804/04 decided on 6.12.05.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. A harassed widow, who has
already suffered on account of death of
her husband, having met an indifferent