Smt. Maya v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Baghpat and Ors

AFR 2025:AHC:80895 Reserved :- 05/05/2025 Delivered :- 16/05/2025 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17029 of 2013 Petitioner :- Smt. Maya Respondent :- Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Baghpat And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Siya Ram Sahu Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Yadav Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Petitioner 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.

¶2Petitioner 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.

¶3In 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.

¶4In 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.

¶5Aforesaid 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 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 re-appraisal 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."

¶6In aforesaid order, there is a reference of a Circular dated

04.12.1982 and for reference, said Circular is quoted below :- "

्ቚ शि्ቌ㞷剺मु⹖䀩ला᮫Ⓘ काआदे

(2)/6751 04/13 10(1)/0203

शि㜗䃛द㛷⺀ቔኌ㜗䃛ेदी

संयु⹖䀩शि्ቌाቔኌदेक(्ቚशि्ቌ㞷剺)

शि्ቌाቔኌदेालय,

उ㛷⺀ⓑᯉ्ቚ दे

इलाहाबादቔኌदांकቔኌदसम्बⓑᯉ, 4, 1982

ቔኌ्ቚय्ቦ ीቔኌगम,

कृपया अपे प䧨⸴ ा䧨⸴ पांक जी-1/2453/81-82

ቔኌदांቔኌकत

27.12.81

ए㜗䃛ं जी-1/1524-82-83 ቔኌदांक

07.10.82

काअ㜗䃛लोक कⓑᯉेकाक厚渼कⓑᯉेजोसहायत ा्ቚ ा्቎

जूቔኌयⓑᯉ हाईस्कूलो ए㜗䃛ं्ቚ ाइमⓑᯉी स्कूलो म卧撒 काय/ⓑᯉत अ्ቚशिቌኌ्ቌत अध्यापक/

अध्याቔኌपकाको्ቚ शि्ቌ㞷剺योग्यत ासेमुቔኌ⹖䀩्ቚ दा कⓑᯉेके

सम्बन्ዏⷴम卧撒है।

उपयु/⹖䀩सन्दቝኌ᮫Ⓘत पो्ቛ ाⓑᯉाक攌矪गईजिज्ሺासा㝖䁫केसम्बन्ዏⷴम卧撒

मुझेआपकोቔኌम्㜗䃛त सूቌኌ>त कⓑᯉेक攌矪ቔኌद? हुआहै-

जिज अ्ቚशिቌኌ्ቌत अध्यापको/

अध्याቔኌपका㝖䁫क攌矪अቔኌ㜗䃛ⓑᯉलसे㜗䃛ाअ㜗䃛ቌኌዏⷴ 30-6-1978

को10

㜗䃛砮溥/ याइससेअቌኌዏⷴकपूⓑᯉीहो>ुक攌矪हो,

उन्हे्ቚ शि्ቌ㞷剺सेमुቔኌ⹖䀩काला᮫Ⓘ 1-7-75

म卧撒देयहोगा, ᮫Ⓘ लेही

आप्ቛ ाⓑᯉामुቔኌ⹖䀩्ቚ दा ቔኌकयेजाेसेसम्ब቏ኌन्ዏⷴत आदे उ⹖䀩ቌኌत शिB

केबादहीቔኌग/त ቔኌकयेजाये।

ⓑᯉाजा्ሺा संख्या/2186/15(13)/1499(7)/17

ቔኌदांक 20-7-79

ए㜗䃛ंⓑᯉाजा्ሺा/2104 (1)/15 (13) /1499 (ii) /

ቔኌदांक㜗䃛म्बⓑᯉ1, 1971

्ቛ ाⓑᯉा्ቚ द㛷⺀्ቚ शि्ቌ㞷剺सेमुቔኌ⹖䀩क攌矪

सुቔኌ㜗䃛ዏⷴाअासक攌矪यमान्यत ा्ቚ ा्቎्ቚ ाइमⓑᯉीत Bाजूቔኌयⓑᯉहाईस्कूलोके

्ቚ ाዏⷴााध्यापकोको᮫Ⓘ ीदेयहोगी।ቔኌकन्त ुइससम्बन्ዏⷴम卧撒जोआदे

आप्ቛ ाⓑᯉाቔኌग/त ቔኌकयेजाये,

इसमेइसबात कास्प厚渼उ्ቤेራॐकⓑᯉ

ቔኌदयाजाा>ाቔኌहएቔኌक्ቚ शि्ቌ㞷剺से्ቚ दा क攌矪गईमुቔኌ⹖䀩काआय,

उन्हे्ቚ शिቌኌ्ቌत अध्यापक माा मा है।्ቚ ዏⷴा अध्यापक/्ቚዏⷴा

अध्याቔኌपकाकेपदपⓑᯉउक攌矪ቔኌयुቔኌ⹖䀩/

पदो्ቐቌኌत त ᮫Ⓘीमान्यहोगीजब

㜗䃛े अቌኌዏⷴसू>ा संख्या 8988 पन््ቖह-20(11/72)

ቔኌदांक फⓑᯉ㜗䃛ⓑᯉी 13,1978

्ቛ ाⓑᯉा ቔኌ㜗䃛्ሺाቔኌपत त Bा

फⓑᯉ㜗䃛ⓑᯉी 1979

से्ቚ᮫Ⓘ ा㜗䃛ी

उ䧨⸴्ቚ䧨⸴ असाቔኌकय मान्यत ा्ቚ ा्቎ बेजिसक (

जूቔኌयⓑᯉ हाईस्कूल)

अध्यापक敊漅 क攌矪᮫Ⓘ त J औⓑᯉ से㜗䃛ा ቔኌयमा㜗䃛ली 1978 ्ቛ ाⓑᯉा ቔኌዏⷴा/रिⓑᯉत

ौቌኌ्ቌकयोग्यत ा......

बाद्ቚ ቌኌत बन्ዏ᮫ⷴⒾ ीपूⓑᯉीकⓑᯉत ेहो।

ऐसेअध्यापको/

अध्याቔኌपका㝖䁫जिजक攌矪से㜗䃛ाअ㜗䃛ቌኌዏⷴम卧撒व्य㜗䃛ዏⷴा हो

के्ቚ कⓑᯉ㞷剺ቔኌदेालयकोቔኌ㜗䃛㜗䃛ⓑᯉ㞷剺सቔኌहत ्ቚ शि्ቌ㞷剺हेत ु᮫Ⓘे जेजायेत Bा

ቔኌदेालयक攌矪सहमቌኌत ्ቚ ा्቎ होेकेप्ቐात हीउको्ቚ शि्ቌ㞷剺से

मुቔኌ⹖䀩सेसम्बंቌኌዏⷴत आदे आप्ቛ ाⓑᯉाቔኌकयेजा㜗䃛े।᮫Ⓘ 㜗䃛दीय (

शि㜗䃛द㛷⺀ቔኌ㜗䃛ेदी)"

¶7In 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 :- "ቔኌ㜗䃛㜗䃛े>ा

्ቦ ीालगⓑᯉामके्ቛ ाⓑᯉा्ቚ ा्቎ कⓑᯉायेगयेअशि᮫Ⓘलेራॐ敊漅केपⓑᯉी्ቌ㞷剺सेस्प厚渼

होत ाहैቔኌक-

1.

्ቦ ीसालगⓑᯉाम्ቛ ाⓑᯉाएक्ቚ मा㞷剺प उदू/ म卧撒लिललिራॐत ्ቚ स्त ुत ቔኌकया

है जिजसका अु㜗䃛ाद कⓑᯉाया गया। उसके अऩुसाⓑᯉ इक攌矪 जन्मቌኌत शिB

03.07.1930 है,

जोदजा/ >ाⓑᯉ(04)

पासक攌矪हैत Bाቔኌदांक

13.05.1947

क攌矪सदⓑᯉबागपत सेजाⓑᯉीቔኌकयागयाहै।

2.

जू䧨⸴ हाईस्कूल पⓑᯉी्ቌा 1952

म卧撒 उ㛷⺀ी㞷剺/ होेका्ቚ मा㞷剺प

्ቚ स्त ुत ቔኌकयाहै।

¶301.10.1957

से㜗䃛म्बⓑᯉ1963

त कसहायत ा्ቚ ा्቎ पाठाला

्ቅ मअलीपुⓑᯉगढीቔኌ㜗䃛कास्ቌे  बागपत म卧撒काय/ कⓑᯉेका्ቚ मा㞷剺प

्ቚ स्त ुत ቔኌकयाहै।ቔኌकसቌኌत शिB त ककाय/ ቔኌकयाहैइसकाकोईउ्ቤेራॐ

हǜहै।यह्ቚ मा㞷剺प मान्यहǜहैक्य敊漅ቔኌक्ቚ मा㞷剺प जिजससंस्Bा

म卧撒काय/ ቔኌकयाहैउससंस्Bा्ቛ ाⓑᯉाजाⓑᯉीहǜቔኌकयागयाहै।्ቚ ዏⷴा अध् यापकjपቚ ा०⸴ पा०⸴ jवኌ व䃛 लोचुपरᯉ ाjदቛ ारᯉ ाjवኌ दनांकj10.04.1970jकोjजारᯉ ी वኌ कयाjगयाjहैjजि जसकाjकोईjसम् बन् धⷴ jनही jह।ै jस+ቌ मjअधኌ धⷴ कारᯉ ीjसे पቚ धኌ त हस् त ा+ቌ रि रᯉ त jभⒾ ीjनही jहै,jव䃛 ेत नjएव䃛 ंjभⒾ ्⺀ ोjकाjभⒾ ीjउ्ቤ ेखॐ jनही jहै।

4.jव䃛 ादीjदቛ ारᯉ ाjउक䀩 jअव䃛 धኌ धⷴ jमम撒j1?jरू पयेjपቚ धኌ त माहjव䃛 ेत नjपቚ ा् jकरᯉ ना बत ायाjह।ै jव䃛 ेत नjपቚ ा् jकरᯉ नेjकाjकोईjरᯉ जि जस् टरᯉ ,jबहंकjपासjबुकjआवኌ द पቚ स् त ुत jनही jवኌ कयाjगया।jगቇ ामjपቚ धⷴ ानjकाjपቚ माण剺 jपतjपቚ स् त ुत jवኌ कयाjह।ै वኌ व䃛 दቕ ालयjपቚ धⷴ ानjअध् यापकjकाjव䃛 ेत नjदेनेjसम् बन् धⷴ ीjकोईjपቚ माण剺 jपत पቚ स् त ुत jनही jवኌ कयाjगया। ?.jउक䀩 jवኌ व䃛 दቕ ालयjमम撒jपी.एफ.jआवኌ दjकटनेjसम् बन् धⷴ ीjकोईjभⒾ ीjपቚ माण剺 पतjपቚ स् त ुत jनही jवኌ कयाjह.ै ?.jवኌ नयवኌु क䀩 jपतjके jअऩुसारᯉ jवኌ दनांकj19.11.1963jकोjपቚ ा०⸴ jपा०⸴ कमरअलीपुरᯉ jगढीjमम撒jकायरभⒾ ारᯉ jगቇ हण剺 jकरᯉ नेjकाjपቚ माण剺 jपतjपቚ स् त ुत jवኌ कया गयाjह।ै

7.jसधኌ चव䃛 ,jउ०⸴ पቚ ०⸴ jबेजि सकjणि श+ቌ ाjपरि रᯉ ष溥 दjके jपतjसं०⸴ jबे०⸴ णि श०⸴ प०⸴ j/ पቚ णि श०⸴ मु०⸴ /j24157?24215/85?86 jवኌ दनांक j06.09.1985 jके अऩुसारᯉ jजि जनjअध् यापको漅 jनेjवኌ नरᯉ न् त रᯉ jसेव䃛 ाj15jव䃛 ष溥 रjपूण剺 रjकरᯉ jलीjहो औरᯉ jवኌ नधⷴ ारि रᯉ त jशधኌै +ቌ कjयोग् यत ाjरᯉ खॐ त ेjहोjबी०⸴ टी०⸴ सी०⸴ jपቚ णि श+ቌ ण剺 jसेjछू ट पቚ दानjकरᯉ नेjके jवኌ नदkशjपቚ दानjवኌ कयेjगयेjहै।

¶8jजि जलाjबेजि सकjणि श+ቌ ाjअधኌ धⷴ कारᯉ ीjमेरᯉ ठ jके jपतांकjई०⸴ j(1) 2339?40/91?92jवኌ दनांकj23.10.91jदቛ ारᯉ ाjबेजि सकjणि श+ቌ ाjपरि रᯉ ष溥 द के jपतjवኌ दनांकj16.09.85jके jअनकቅु मjमम撒jपቚ णि श+ቌ ण剺 jसेjमुवኌ क䀩 jपቚ दान की矪 jगयीjहै,jजोjतुवኌ टjपूण剺 रjहैjक् योवኌ कj19.1163jसेjपूव䃛 रjकी矪 jसेव䃛 ायम撒 मान् यjनही jहैjत थाjवኌ नदkशो漅 jके jअनुसारᯉ jशधኌै +ቌ कjयोग् यत ाjभⒾ ीjपूण剺 रjनही करᯉ त ेjह।ै jकमjसेjकमjशधኌै +ቌ कjयोग् यत ाjइण् टरᯉ मीधኌ डयेटjयाjसम+ቌ jहोनी चावኌ हये।

9.jशቦ ीjशालगरᯉ ामjकी矪 jवኌ दनांकj25.07.73jकोjमान् यjसेव䃛 ायेj9jव䃛 ष溥 र 8jमाहj6jवኌ दनjहोत ीjह।ै jजोj15jव䃛 ष溥 रjसेjअत् यधኌ धⷴ कjकमjह।ै वኌ नण剺 रय शቦ ीjशालगरᯉ ामjअपቚ णि शधኌ +ቌ त j(सेव䃛 ावኌ नव䃛 ृ्⺀ ) jस०⸴ अ०⸴ jपቚ ा०⸴ पा०⸴ jक् यामपुरᯉ की矪 jमान् यjवኌ नयवኌु क䀩 jधኌ त णि थj1?.11.??jह।ै jसधኌ चव䃛 jबेणि शकjणि श+ቌ ाjपरि रᯉ ष溥 द इलाहाबादjके jआदेशjवኌ दनांकj1?.?9.8?jके jअऩुसारᯉ j2?.?7.7? कोjकु लjमान् यjअपቚ णि शधኌ +ቌ त jसेव䃛 ाएj9jव䃛 ष溥 रj8jमाहj?jवኌ दनjहैjजोj1? व䃛 ष溥 रjसेjकमjह।ै jवኌ नधⷴ ारि रᯉ त jधኌ त णि थjकोjशधኌै +ቌ कjयोग् यत ाjभⒾ ीjपूण剺 रjनही करᯉ त ेjह।ै jसी.पी.एफ./जी.पी.एफ.jयोजनाjमम撒jभⒾ ीjससኌ म् मलि लत jनही ह।ै jवኌ नधⷴ ारि रᯉ त jशत kjपूण剺 रjनही jकरᯉ त ेjइसलि लएjवኌ नयमो漅 jके jअ?् त गरत jपम撒शन के jअधኌ धⷴ कारᯉ ीjनही jह।ै j अत ः jशቦ ीjशालगरᯉ ामjकाjपቚ त् याव䃛 ेदनjवኌ नस् त ारि रᯉ त jकरᯉ त ेjहुएjवኌ नरᯉ स् त jवኌ कया जात ाjह।ै "

¶8Petitioner'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.

¶9Contempt 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.

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

¶11In 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.

¶12Petitioner 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.

¶13Petitioner'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.

¶14Therefore, 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 year 2013 and she is waiting for a just decision for last more than 12 years.

¶15Sri 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.

¶16Learned 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 :- "

उपयु/⹖䀩 ቔኌ㜗䃛砮溥यक कृपया अपे पांक सं䧨⸴ 2837/88/᮫Ⓘशि䧨⸴मु䧨⸴/85-86

ቔኌदांक05.08.85

कासन्द᮫Ⓘ/ ले

जोउ⹖䀩अध्याቔኌपकाको्ቚ शि्ቌ㞷剺सेमुቔኌ⹖䀩्ቚ दा कⓑᯉेम卧撒है।

इससम्बन्ዏⷴम卧撒आपसेयहकहाहैቔኌकउपसቌኌ>㜗䃛उ䧨⸴्ቚ䧨⸴ास शि्ቌा-13

अु᮫Ⓘाग लራॐ㞋䀰 के प संख्या 1274/15/19-1499/6/61

ቔኌदांक

10.09.73

म卧撒 उजि्ቤलिራॐत ⓑᯉाजा्ሺा संख्या 1386/15/13/1450/56/73

ቔኌदांक

30.05.73

के्ቛ ाⓑᯉा

ⓑᯉाज्यपाल महोदय े जुलाई 25, 1973

को जिज अध्यापक

अध्याቔኌपका㝖䁫ंे15

㜗䃛砮溥/ क攌矪ቔኌⓑᯉन्त ⓑᯉसे㜗䃛ापू㞷剺/ कⓑᯉलीहोऔⓑᯉ

उ⹖䀩ቔኌदांककोቔኌዏⷴा/रिⓑᯉत ैቌኌ्ቌकयोग्यत ाⓑᯉራॐत ेहोक攌矪᮫Ⓘ ीटी䧨⸴सी䧨⸴

्ቚ शि्ቌ㞷剺सेछूट्ቚ दा कⓑᯉदीहै

।इसकेलिलयेቔኌकसीअቌኌዏⷴकाⓑᯉीके

आदे क攌矪 आ㜗䃛श्यकत ा हǜ है। इसम卧撒 आपको के㜗䃛ल इत ा ही

देራॐाहैቔኌकउ⹖䀩ቌኌत शिB म卧撒उसक攌矪15

㜗䃛砮溥/ क攌矪ቔኌⓑᯉन्त ⓑᯉसे㜗䃛ापू㞷剺/

हो>ुक攌矪होत Bाቔኌዏⷴा/रिⓑᯉत ैቌኌ्ቌकयोग्यत ाⓑᯉራॐत ेहो।

कृपया ास के ቔኌदये गये ቔኌद?敊漅 के अऩुरूप ቔኌዏⷴा/रिⓑᯉत ैቌኌ्ቌक

योग्यत ाⓑᯉራॐे㜗䃛ालेऐसेशि्ቌक/

शिቌኌ्ቌकाजिजन्होे25.07.72 को

㜗䃛砮溥/ क攌矪से㜗䃛ापू㞷剺/ कⓑᯉलीहो्ቚ शि्ቌ㞷剺सेमु⹖䀩समझेजाय卧撒गे

त Bाउन्हेቔኌद䧨⸴25.07.72

केउपⓑᯉान्त ्ቚ शिቌኌ्ቌत 㜗䃛ेत ्ቅमቔኌदया " जाये।

¶17It 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.

¶18Learned 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.

¶19Sri 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.

¶20As 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.

¶21However, 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.

¶22As 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.

¶23In 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.

¶24In 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.

¶25In aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated

05.03.2008 is set aside and its legal consequence will follow.

¶26As 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.

¶27At 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.

¶28This order is passed in above referred peculiar circumstances, therefore, it shall not be treated as a precedence. Order Date :- May 16, 2025 Sinha_N. [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad