Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80443 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27168 of 2018 Petitioner :- Heeramani Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Faneesh Mishra,Satya Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by respondent no.2, wherein the claim of the petitioner for re-fixation of pension by considering the services rendered from 30.07.1965 to 06.09.1968, was rejected. 3. When the respondent authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner despite the letters sent by the principal of the fifth respondent vide letter dated 5.4.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ A No. 45202 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of with following directions: "The petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi on 30.06.1998. His retiral dues were determined by omitting his working for a period of three years i.e. w.e.f. 30.07.1965 to 06.09.1968. This admittedly was done as the records had been misplaced and his relieving on transfer was treated as resignation. The Principal of Government Intermediate College concerned, upon verification has certified the working of petitioner for this period also, and has forwarded the claim to Director of Education on 05.04.2013 for counting of three years also towards petitioner's service for determining his retiral benefits. The grievance is that despite repeated reminders, no decision has been taken by the Director of Education. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no. 3 to take a decision upon the letter of Principal, respondent no. 5, dated 05.04.2013, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Liberty stands reserved to the petitioner to annex a copy of letter of Principal dated 05.04.2012 along with other details and certified copy of this order. In case, the claim of petitioner is accepted, all consequential benefits would also be extended to petitioner within a further period of two months thereafter. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of." 4. Consequent to the aforesaid directions, the respondents have passed the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that letter which was issued by the principal, is obtained by the petitioner with collusion and accordingly, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher on 30.07.1965. While working on the said post, the petitioner has made an application for the post of Superintendent in Rajkiya Ashram Paddhati Vidyalaya. Subject to selection process, the petitioner was selected and appointed by U.P. Public Service Commission vide order dated 17.8.1968. Consequent upon the selection made by U.P. Public Service Commission, the petitioner has moved an application before the principal as well as the competent authority to relieve him from the said post to join on the selected post. Accordingly, after proper relieving order, the petitioner has joined his duties on new post and he was appointed in the year 1965. Subsequently, he was selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission, he is entitled for service, which was rendered in 1965 to 1968 at Government Inter College, Duddhi. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the observations made by this Court in the above-referred judgment, wherein the Court has specifically directed the respondents to pass appropriate order taking the letters issued by the Principal of Government College concerned dated 5.4.2013. When there is specific direction to consider the claim of the petitioner based on the letter issued by the concerned Principal, the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim by saying that the letter has been obtained by collusion. 7. Learned Standing Counsel based on the averments made in the counter affidavit has submitted that after selection the petitioner has submitted his resignation 6.9.1968 and the said resignation was accepted by the competent authority i.e. Additional Director of Education, U.P. on 16.11.1968. Hence, once the petitioner has resigned from the earlier post, he is not entitled for counting the said period for calculating the pension. Accordingly, the authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as the selection of the petitioner by the U.P. Public Service Commission vide order dated 17.8.1968 is concerned, is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 30.07.1965 and worked in Government College and while working, he was selected by U.P. Public Service Commission. If that being the position, the requirement of resignation to the earlier post would not arise, at the most he can only relieve from the earlier post to join on a new post. Once the petitioner is selected by U.P. Public Service Commission, the authorities cannot reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has submitted his resignation and there is no necessity to submit any resignation. The authorities should not take the letter as resignation letter and that should be count only as a relieving letter. 9. Considering the above said facts, the impugned order 31.10.2018 passed by respondent no.2 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 to consider the case of the petitioner by treating the petitioner's letter dated 6.9.1968 as relieving letter and pass appropriate order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad