COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) 525/2002 Smt. Syambada Dimri …….Petitioner Versus Director of Education & Others. …….Respondents Sri Sharad Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3rd April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Petitioner was initially appointed on 1.7.1970 in a private institution. Thereafter the institution was taken over by the Government in 1980. The petitioner retired on 30.6.1991 after attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner’s case is that she has not been granted the benefit of service rendered by her in the institution while it was a non-government institution. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the services rendered by the petitioner in a non-government institution is liable to be counted for pensionary benefits and the pension sanctioning authority has erred by denying the same. Reliance has been placed on case of Shital Prasad Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Others reported in (1990) 3 UPLBEC 1887. Para 2 and 3 of the said judgment are relevant for the purpose of the present case, which are reproduced as under: “2. The petitioner’s case is that he is not allowed the benefit of service in a Private School on the basis of some Government Order by which the previous Government Order was superseded and it was desired that those, who retired between 13.6.1979 and 10.1.1986, shall only be given pensionary benefit by including their previous service in non-government institutions, in case they have deposited the shares of the employer towards the Provident Fund etc. The Government Order, therefore, makes it possibly only for those persons, who have retired between 13.6.1979 and 10.1.1986 to get the benefit of previous service in non-government institution and it excludes the others from such benefits. The classification would mean that anybody, who has retired before 13.6.1979 or after 10.1.1986 will not be given the benefit of service in non- government institution. The classification made by the State on the basis of dates of retirement among the retired government servants does not appear to be reasonable and is opposed to the guarantees contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara, reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 has dealt with a similar question where different pensionary benefits were granted to the retired employees on the basis of their date of retirement. The classification made by the Government in that case on the basis of dates of retirement of the employees was held to be opposed to the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that authority will squarely apply to the facts of this case also because on the dates of retirement a classification is sought to be made between the retired employees . Some employees, who have retired between particular dates, are given benefits of the previous service in non-government institutions and others, who have retired before or after the said dates are denied the said benefits. This type of classification does not seem to be rational and amounts to undoing the equality. The microscopic classification is not permissible by the Constitution and is opposed to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the subsequent Govt. Order by which such a classification is made is rendered invalid as it infringes equality clause of the Constitution. The result is that the petitioner’s service in the non-government institution has to be counted towards his service for the purpose of giving him pensionary and gratuity benefits by the State.” 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner has worked in that institution from 1.7.1970 to 10.2.1980 and later on it was taken over by the Government. Therefore, in the view of the facts and legal proposition quoted above, the service rendered by the petitioner in the non-government institution shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary and gratuity benefits. 4. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondents are directed to count the petitioner’s service in non-government institution for the purpose of computation of pension and gratuity within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh