MANODUTT YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. BASIC EDU. LKO. AND 2 OTHERS
/10599/2024 · 2025-01-24
Abdul Moin
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 168720 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 168720 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4850 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10599 of 2024 Petitioner :- Manodutt Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Yadav Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Aradhna Shukla, learned State Counsel appearing for the State- respondents No.1 & 2 and Shri Ravi Prakash Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.
3. The petitioner, who is a convicted person under Section 302 IPC is before this Court raising a challenge to the order dated 09.10.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby District Basic Education Officer, Ayodhya (hereinafter referred to as 'the B.S.A.') while placing reliance on CSR 351 and Rule 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahayata Prapt Shiksha Karmachari Anshdayi, Pravidhayi (Contributory Provident Fund) Beema Pension Niyamawali, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1964) has held that the petitioner is not entitled for pension.
4. The contention is that under CSR 351, it is only the State Government which can pass an order for withholding the pension. Likewise, under Rule 30 of the Rules 1964 also, it is the State Government which can direct for withholding the pension and consequently the order passed by the B.S.A. is
patently without jurisdiction.
5. Aforesaid provisions of CSR 351 and Rule 30 of the Rules, 1964 are not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents from a perusal of which it is apparent that it is only State that can withhold the pension. However, in the instant case, the order impugned has been passed by the B.S.A.
6. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The
order impugned dated 09.10.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed.
7. The respondent No.3 shall remit the claim of the petitioner to the State Government for appropriate orders. Let the papers be remitted in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the B.S.A. The State Government shall proceed to pass a final order in accordance with law under relevant rules thereafter which order be passed expeditiously.
Order Date :- 24.1.2025 S. Shivhare Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench