2025:AHC:64942 Judgment reserved on : 23.04.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 28.04.2025 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41135 of 2017 Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Gaur And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan,Anubhav Chandra,Bharat Singh Pal,Premnendra Singh,Sr. Advocate,Vikram Singh Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Pratap Singh,Shivaji Singh,Surnedra Prasad Shukla,Vijay Kumar Dixit Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, learned Counsel for petitioners, Mr. Surendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for Zila Panchayat, Mr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. 2. This writ petition was filed by four petitioners. During pendency of this petition, petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.4 have expired and their respective legal heirs are brought on record. 3. The case of all petitioners was that they have worked in an Institution, namely, Mahatma Gandhi Junior High School, Purakala, Tehsil Talbehat, District Lalitpur run by Zila Panchayat Lalitpur and they have retired in the years 2008, 2014, 2012 and 2014. It is further case of all petitioners that they were paid pension till March, 2017 and, thereafter, it was stopped, without assigning any reason. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Lalitpur has communicated the State Government vide an letter dated 09.05.2017 for appropriate orders in regard to payment of their pension. Petitioner no.1, Jagdish Prasad Gaur since deceased has earlier approached this Court by way of filing Writ No.60287 of 2009, which was disposed of by an order dated 11.12.2009 to consider his case and, thereafter, the Director, Local Funds & Audit, Allahabad by a detailed order dated 02.03.2010, held that said petitioner was not entitled for pension and the relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:- “ इ प्रका स्प ह क श्र जगद प्राद गौ को पेंशन आदि लाभ देय पेंन आदि लाभ देय आद लाभ देय देय न आदि लाभ देयह ह औ वे जिजला परिषद ेवा न आदि लाभ देयवृत्त लाभ नियमावली लाभ देय न आदि लाभ देययमावल, 1972 के लागू हो पेंशन आदि लाभ देयन आदि लाभ देये के पूव& लागू अंदाय भ देयवष्य न आदि लाभ देय*+ यो पेंशन आदि लाभ देयजन आदि लाभ देया े आच्छादत है और इन्हें ह औ इन्हें त है और इन्हेंदन आदि लाभ देयुा अंदाय भ देयवष्य न आदि लाभ देय*+ यो पेंशन आदि लाभ देयजन आदि लाभ देया के अन्त है और इन्हेंग&त है और इन्हें देय भ देयुगत है और इन्हेंान आदि लाभ देय जिजला पंचायत है और इन्हें ललिलत है और इन्हेंपु द्वाा कया जा कत है और इन्हेंा ह। अतः याचिका संख्या अत है और इन्हेंः याचिका संख्या या*चका ंख्या-60287 वष& 2009 में मान आदि लाभ देयन आदि लाभ देयय उच्च न्यायालय न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद के आदे दन आदि लाभ देयाँक 11-11- 2009 के अन आदि लाभ देयुपालन आदि लाभ देय में श्र जगद प्राद गौ के पेंन आदि लाभ देय ंबं+ मामले का ” त है और इन्हेंदन आदि लाभ देयुा न आदि लाभ देयस्त है और इन्हेंाण किया जाता है।” कया जात है और इन्हेंा ह। अतः याचिका संख्या 5. The said order was never challenged either by petitioner no.1 or other petitioners, which is an adverse factor against all the petitioners that since by the said order, claim of pension was entirely denied. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further referred paragraph no.5 of counter affidavit filed by respondent no.1 that pension was paid by Zila Panchayat Lalitpur from their local account which cannot be stopped arbitrarily without putting the petitioners on notice. The State Government was under legal obligation to respond the letter submitted by concerned Officer of Zila Panchayat, Lalitpur and they cannot denied that it was never received in the Office, when it is on record of the present writ petition which is pending for last six to seven years and till date, no response to it is filed. Para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.1 is hereinafter:- “That after attaining the age of superannuation the petitioners was paid their post retiral dues by the Zila Panchayat Lalitpur, itself from their local account. The Service Rules applicable to the Employee of Zila Panchayat Lalitpur were equally applicable in the case of petitioner also.” 7. Per contra, learned counsel for Zila Panchayat submits that petitions are not entitled for any pension. The pension given to petitioners for some years was from the funds of Zila Panchayat, Lalitpur and later on when it was that they are not entitled for pension, it was stopped and guidance was sought from the State Government. 8. Learned Chief Standing Counsel for State submits that State cannot be burdened for payment of pension of Teachers of the Schools run by Zila Panchayat, unaided Schools. 9. Petitioners have worked in the School run by Zila Panchayat Lalitpur and since it was not aided by State Government, therefore, retirement benefits which could be granted, be paid only from the funds of Zila Panchayat, the State cannot put on burden for such payments. 10. The Zila Panchayat has paid pension to petitioners for some years and it was abruptly stopped without assigning any reasons. However, since no provision is brought on record that petitioners are entitled for pension even from referred rules, it cannot be construed that petitioners were State's employees, as they were worked in the School run by Zila Panchayat on its own funds. 11. The U.P. Zila Panchayat Employee of Retirement Benefit Rules, 1972 are not applicable to the teaching and inspecting staff of Education Department of Zila Panchayat. There is no other provision for granting retiral benefits to the petitioners. It has also been informed to this Court that now the School is not even running, therefore, in absence of any specific provision to grant pension to petitioners as well as that an order dated 20.03.2010 against petitioner no.1, which is equally applicable to other petitioners was never challenged, therefore, the relief sought cannot be granted. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 A.N. Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad