http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2945 of 2006

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

RESPONDENT: LAXMI SHANKER GUPTA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/07/2006

BENCH: Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  (arising out of SLP(C)No.21143 of 2003)

Dr. AR . Lakshmanan, J.

       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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.