IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 13 (S/S) of 2007 Suresh Chand Lohani S/o Late Leeladhar Lohani R/o Shivalik Vihar Ph-II Behind Sheesh Mahal P.O. Kathgodam District Nainital ……………..Petitioner. Versus (1) State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Education, Education Department, Government of U.A., Dehradun. (2) Director of Education Uttaranchal State Education Directorate, Dehradun. (3) Joint Director Education, Kumaun Region Nainital, U.A. (4) District Education Officer (DIOS) Pithoragarh. (5) Addl. District Education Officer (BSA) Pithoragarh. ……………Respondents . Sri I.S. Mehra, Advocate for the Petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.06.2006/19.06.2006, passed by Director, School Education (respondent no. 2), whereby the petitioner’s representation for payment of pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. has been rejected by said authority. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Craft Teacher on 10.01.1968 in Government Normal School (Oyal), Khere (Uttar Pradesh). In 1988, he was selected and appointed as Sub Deputy Inspector at Pithoragarh. On completion of 58 years’ of age, the petitioner got retired from service w.e.f. 1st March 2003. It appears that meanwhile service book of the petitioner got misplaced and District Basic Education Officer, Pithoragarh, vide his order dated 05.07.2000, directed reconstruction of service book. When the petitioner’s pot retiral dues got held up, he filed a Writ Petition No. 702 (S/S) of 2004 before this Court, in which apart from the post retiral dues the petitioner also sought the selection grade w.e.f. 10.01.1984, on completion of his 16 years of service. Said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2005 with the following direction- “The Director of Education / respondent no. 4 shall consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 26.05.2004 (annexure no. 22 to the writ petition) and shall take decision on the reliefs mentioned in the representation and all other benefits for which the petitioner is entitled, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.” (4) In compliance of aforesaid order the Director, School Education, Uttarakhand (present respondent no.2) passed the impugned order dated 15.06.2006 / 19.06.2006, wherein it is observed that the petitioner has been granted selection grade claimed by him. However, as to the post retiral dues the Director, School Education, observed that the same pertains to the State of U.P. and the Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, cannot make any comment, and rejected the representation of the petitioner as baseless. (5) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 5, the story that has been mentioned in the impugned order, is repeated. (6) Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2003 from the State of Uttarakhand. It is shocking that the respondents have taken the plea that the liability to pay the pensionary benefits are that of State of Uttar Pradesh. Such a stand in a case where the employee has admittedly retired from the State Government Service from the State of Uttarakhand, after creation of State, is nothing but the harassment of the employee. Section 54 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Central Act No. 29 of 2000) reads as under:- “54. Pensions.- The liability of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh in respect of the pensions shall pass to, or be apportioned between, the successor States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal in accordance with the provisions contained in the Eighth Schedule to this Act.” (7) Clause 5(1) of the Eighth Schedule of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, provides that the liability in respect of the pension of any officer serving immediately before the appointed day in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh and retiring on or after that day, shall be that of the successor State granting him the pension. (8) In view of the above provisions of law, the impugned order passed by Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, so far as it relates to the denial of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, is illegal and liable to be quashed. (9) Therefore, the writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 15.06.2006 / 19.06.2006 is quashed so far as it relates to denial of pensionary benefits, gratuity, leave encashment etc. to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to clear the admissible retiral dues of the petitioner including pension, gratuity and leave encashment etc., within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced. Also, as to the time barred T.A. bills, the authority concerned is directed to take the steps as per the financial rules, after getting the same pre-audited. As to the promotional pay scale, payable under the Government Order No. 1014/01/Vitt/2001, dated 12.03.2001 is concerned, the petitioner’s case shall be reconsidered (within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 26.08.2008 NS