Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80771 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5394 of 2015 Petitioner :- Richh Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Devesh Vikram,Shivam Yadav Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. Delay Condonation Application No. 10/2023 1. Heard. 2. Cause shown is sufficient. 3. Delay in filing substitution application is condoned. 4. Application is allowed. Substitution Application No. 11/2023 1. Heard. 2. Allowed. 3. Cause title be amended during course of day. Order on Writ 1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri A.K. Nagvanshi, learned Additional C.S.C. and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Original petitioner was appointed in the year 1970 and he got retired in the year 2012. At the stage of determination of pension, an objection was raised in Audit that original petitioner was paid salary of trained teacher though he was an untrained teacher and accordingly, provisional pension was fixed and it was directed by impugned order to calculate amount of recovery. No order of recovery was though passed. 3. Original petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present petition in the year 2015 and this Court has passed following interim order on 31.03.2015 :- "Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Saurabh Yadav holding brief of Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel representing respondent No.3. Learned Standing represents respondents No.1 and 2. The grievance raised in tis writ petitioner is that certain amount of money is sought to be recovered from the petitioner who has retired as Asstt. Teacher from a Junior High School governed by the Basic Education Act and U.P. Recognised Basic School(Junior High School)(Recruitment and Condiditioins of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. The petitioner was initially appointed on 7.7.1970. as untrained teacher and he continued to function as such. In the year 1994 it was provided that all the teachers who are not trained but have continuously functioned as such for past ten years would be entitled to exemption from training and thus the petitioner by the order dated 17.11.1995 was exempted from training and now the petitioner has finally retired. In the meantime it so appears that the authorities at the time of the audit came to find that the petitioner had been given trained teacher grade right from the year 1979 whereas for the first time the status of trained teacher was given to the petitioner in the year 1995 and , therefore, it has been held that the petitioner would be entitled to trained grade only from 1995 and the amount paid from 1979 is sought to be recovered. The matter requires consideration. The respondents may file counter affidavit within one month. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing, the recovery pursuant to the order dated 7.10.2014 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed." 4. During pendency of this writ petition, probably due to above interim order, original petitioner got only provisional pension and his final pension was not determined. Meanwhile, original petitioner died on 20.05.2021 and as referred above, his legal heir is now on record. 5. Learned counsel for newly impleaded petitioner has placed legal position on issue of recovery after retirement that no recovery could be made except a case of pension, which was never alleged as well as that when original petitioner was appointed, it was not mandatory to be a trained teacher and there were subsequent Government Orders where exemption was granted to such untrained teacher from training. 6. Learned Additional C.S.C. and learned counsel for State have assisted the Court that till date there is no determination of amount for recovery, therefore, and due to interim order, it was not calculated and probably, due to interim order, original petitioner's pension was not determined. 7. I have considered above submissions and perused the record. 8. As referred above, it is well settled that in absence of any fraud committed by original petitioner, amount paid could be recovered except in peculiar circumstances, which does not exist in present case and since order of recovery has already been stayed by interim order dated 31.03.2015, therefore, said order is made absolute. 9. In view of above, writ petition is disposed of with a direction that pension of original petitioner will be determined and its arrears till his death be paid to his legal heir i.e. wife (substituted petitioner) and if she is entitled for family pension, same shall also be determined within 3 months. 10. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad