SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Vs
Laxmi Shanker Gupta
Appeal (Civil) 2945 of 2006
(Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan and L. S. Panta, JJ)
13.07.2006
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21143 of 2003)
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 31.3.2003
passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.9346 of 2001. The prayer before the High Court by the respondent
herein was that his services in Tinsukia Degree College, Assam as Hindi
Lecturer be added to the services rendered at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith,
Varanasi for calculating to his post retiral benefits. The learned counsel for
the petitioner before the High Court relied upon a Division Bench decision of
Lucknow Bench of the said court in the case of Dr. Shankar Sahai Srivastava
versus State of U.P.& ors. decided on 7.12.1999. The Division Bench of the
High Court following the said decision allowed the writ petition filed by the
respondent herein and directed that the respondent's service in Tinsukia Degree
College, Assam shall be added to his service rendered in Mahatma Gandhi Kashi
Vidyapith, Varanasi. A further direction was given to the authorities to refix
the pension within two months and the arrears of his pension be paid within the
same period.
Our attention was also drawn to the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in
Dr. Shankar Sahai Srivastava versus State of U.P.& ors. The said order
dated 7.12.1999 reads thus:
"LUCKNOW Dated : 7.12.1999
Hon'ble M. Katju, J.
Hon'ble U.K. Dhaon, J.
Heard. Petitioner has retired as Professor in Department of Sociology in Kashi
Vidyapith Varanasi, which is a University. He is claiming that his earlier
services in other Institutions be added to his service in Kashi Vidyapith.
We dispose of this Writ Petition which the direction that petitioner's pension be recalculated in accordance with statute 15.05 of Kashi Vidyapith within two months of production of certified copy of this order before the authority concerned. Payment will be made accordingly to the recalculation."
A perusal of the said order would show that there was absolutely no discussion
by the Bench as to why the said direction in regard to the petitioner's pension
was issued. The order, in our opinion, is non-speaking.
Aggrieved by the said order, the State of U.P. & ors preferred special
leave petition before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court on
27.9.2000 on the ground of delay in approaching this Court. The special leave
petition was not disposed of by this Court on merit. In the impugned order
also, except adopting the reason given by the order dated 7.12.1999, no other
reason was given by the Division Bench. Before us, several legal contentions
have been raised by Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel for the State and
also countered by Mr. Rohan Thanavi, learned counsel for the respondent. In our
opinion, the matter required detailed investigation with reference to Section
33 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 and also with reference to
the General Order issued under reference no.2148/Pandrah/15/1983-46(14)/83
dated 24.12.1983. In our view, Regulation 15.05 of the Statute of the
University is also required to be considered for determining the claim of the
respondent herein. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court and
restore the Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.9346 of 2001 and request the High
Court to dispose of the writ petition within six months from the date of production
of copy of order of this Court by either party.
In view of the remittal order now passed by us, we set aside the order dated
31.3.2003 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.9346 of 2001. Both parties are
at liberty to file additional pleadings and documents before the High Court.
The question of law is also left open.
The Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs.