Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46220 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1995 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shiv Govind Trivedi Respondent :- Sampurnanand Sanskrit University Thru. Registrar And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Dubey,Animesh Bajpai,Jitendra Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- Shachindra Pratap Singh,Arvind Johari,C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shachindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Arvind Jauhari, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Dr. Uday veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. The facts of the case have already been noted in the order dated 18.02.2025. The relevant extract of the said order is reproduced below :- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Kumar Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shachindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 and Sri Arvind Johari, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama today in Court on behalf of the respondents no. 3 to 5. A 76 years old man is before this Court raising a challenging to the order dated 16.12.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition passed by the District Inspector of Schools whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of retiral dues by counting his entire service has been rejected. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011. He has only been paid pension by treating his services from 18.08.1978 to 30.09.1994 as emerges from a perusal of the order impugned but the further service of the petitioner has not been counted till his retirement. The reason for non counting of the subsequent services are that the service records of the petitioner are not available as the Principal of the Institution had misplaced the records of the petitioner. It is also contended that in the order impugned it has been indicated that the petitioner was absent from the institution since 10.07.2007. However, from the order impugned it does not emerge as to if the petitioner failed to report back to the institution after 10.07.2007 whether his services were ever terminated. The services prima facie appear to have not been terminated inasmuch as the petitioner is in fact in receipt of pension by treating his service since 1978 to 1994 as emerges from a perusal of the order impugned dated 16.12.2024. " 3. Sri Jauhari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, on the basis of instructions, states that the services of the petitioner have never been terminated. The aforesaid statement is recorded. 4. From the arguments as raised by learned counsel appearing for the parties and a perusal of records, it emerges that there is no dispute pertaining to the period of service of the petitioner from 1978 to 1994 so as to entail the petitioner being granted retiral dues. 5. Sri Jauhari informs that the petitioner would have to appear before the Principal of respondent No.3- Institution in order to fill out the paperwork so that at least the pension for the aforesaid period can be processed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be willing to go to the respondent No.3- Institution on 19.08.2025 at 11 A.M. with all the relevant documents including his ID proof, etc. 7. Sri Jauhari shall ensure that some competent person is available in the institution to ensure that the papers are correctly filled in by the petitioner on the said date, considering that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 76 years. 8. However, in case any documents are lacking, the same would also be indicated on the said date by the competent authority, which would be made available by the petitioner within next month. His claim shall thereafter be processed in accordance with law within four weeks of the said papers being made available by the Committee of Management. 9. Now the only remaining question is for the period from 1995 till 30.06.2011. 10. Sri Jauhari states that the aforesaid papers are not traceable and an F.I.R. in this regard has also been lodged. 11. Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5, states that till such time the papers are not made available by respondent No.3, the claim of the petitioner for counting the said period of service for the purpose of pension and other dues cannot be processed. 12. In case the papers have gone missing at the end of respondent No.3, then it cannot be said that the petitioner had any role in the papers having gone missing, inasmuch as an F.I.R. has been lodged against the erstwhile Principal of the Institution. Thus, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his, more particularly considering that, as already indicated above, he is a senior citizen aged about 76 years. 13. Considering the aforesaid, respondent No.5, i.e., the District Inspector of Schools, Raebareli, shall himself sort out the issue pertaining to non-availability of papers and process the claim in accordance with law with regard to counting of the aforesaid period of service, i.e., from 1995 till 2011. Even if the papers are not made available by the respondent No.3, it would be open for the DIOS to proceed in accordance with law, but there would not be any occasion for the competent authority to reject the claim of the petitioner for not counting the period of service for the purpose of pension and other retiral dues solely on the ground of non-availability of the papers. 14. The claim of the petitioner with regard to the period from 1995 till 2011 shall be processed by the respondent No.5 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Abdul Moin, J.) Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Shubhankar Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench