Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89511 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 855 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rama Shankar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Yadav,Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhakar Singh Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.12.2019 passed by respondent no.2, Joint Director of Education, VII-Region, Gorakhpur (contained as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition); (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay retiring pension to the petitioner as well as all other retiral benefits payable to the petitioner under law within a reasonable period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;" 2. As the issue is already decided by Apex Court and following the judgment of the Apex Court, this Court has also considered and disposed of several writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on one of the judgment reported in 2024 (5) ADJ 151 (Indramani Rao Vs. State of U.P. and Others). In the said judgment the co-ordinate bench has considered and passed the following order:- "6. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, in my considered view, once the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation as he has admittedly been granted voluntary retirement under the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 20th Janu-ary, 2022, there remained no occasion now for the Education authorities to have gone into the verification of the academic records of petitioner so as to deny him pension and that too upon a third party private complaint more especially when the writ petition filed by the third party questioning the appointment of the petitioner, had been dismissed on 26.4.2022. The relevant pro-visions under the Intermediate Education Act, 1961 wherein the power could have been exer-cised to question the appointment in Section 6-E (10) of the Intermediate Education Act, but power is to be exercised only in respect of head of the institution and teachers, who are in service. The punishments that are required to be imposed un-der Section 16G (3) (q) are meant only in re-spect of working teachers. The regulations that have been framed for the purpose of enquiry/disciplinary proceedings are also in respect of teachers and employees working in the institu-tion. Nothing has been pointed out at the instance of learned Standing Counsel that any of the regu-lations provides for any disciplinary action against a retired employee. All that is written is vide regu-lation 30, 35 relates to employees working. Thus, in my considered view in the absence of any pro- visions to undertake a disciplinary proceeding in respect of retired employee, no action can be taken. If any such enquiry is held into the aca-en-demic record of such teacher, like the petitioner, would all lead to a futile exercise burdening the public exchequer additionally. In matters of ser-vice, there is a contract of employment, which ends with the employee retiring from service unless the rules permit departmental enquiry or action against employees even after their retire-ment for a certain period of time. This Court as well as Supreme Court has repeatedly held that legality of appointment should not be questioned after a lapse of substantial period of time. 7. In the case of Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another, JT 2003 (6) SC 20, vide paragraph-37, the Supreme Court has held thus:- 37..... A departmental proceeding can continue so long as the employee is in ser-vice. In the event, a disciplinary proceeding is kept pending by the employer the employee cannot be made to retire. There must exist specific provision in the pension rules in terms whereof, whole or a part of the pension can be withheld or withdrawn wherefor a pro-ceeding has to be initiated. Further more, no rule has also been brought to our notice pro- viding for continuation of such proceeding despite permitting the employee concerned to retire. In absence of such a proceeding, the High Court or the State cannot contend that the departmental proceedings against the appellant Mata Deen Garg could continue." 8. This judgment has been subsequently fol-lowed by two Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Ravindra Singh Rathor v. District Inspector of Schools; 2003 Lawsuit (All) 950 and Bal Krishna Pandey v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ-A No. 20488 of 2007 decided on 30th April, 2007. 9. Beside the above learned Standing Coun-sel has not been able to show any Government order or any law that entitles the State to with-hold and deny pension to a retired employee by embarking upon an enquiry into the qualification of a retired teacher at the time of his or her entry into service decades ago. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 11. The order passed by Deputy Director of Education dated 5.5.2022 and 3.9.2022 as well as the consequential order dated 13th Septem-a ber, 2022 passed by District Inspector of Schools, are, accordingly, hereby quashed. The respon-dents are directed to clear all post retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of one month of production of certified copy of this order, failing which respondents shall have to pay interest @ 8% for the period payment is delayed beyond 30. days as prescribed above." 4. In view of the same, considering the said observations, the impugned order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the second-respondent is also set aside, accordingly, the present writ petition is also allowed on the same terms. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad