
Uttarakhand HC slams govt, seeks reply on move to recover service benefits given to teachers, ETEducation
Nainital: Expressing serious concern over state govt’s move to recover financial benefits, granted during their active service period, from retired and soon-to-retire teachers, Uttarakhand high court on Thursday took a firm stance against it and directed the finance secretary to appear via video link on Oct 9 and “provide a clear explanation and guidance on the matter”.
Hearing multiple petitions filed by the affected retired teachers from Champawat district, the single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari observed: “First, you offered these benefits as an incentive during their service. Now, when they are no longer in service, why is the govt trying to recover those benefits? Such actions demoralise employees who have served with dedication.”
The court further stated that such recovery actions, especially after retirement, were “unjust”. “Explain the logic. Why were the benefits given in the first place, and why are they being taken back now?” the bench stated.
Sanjay Bhatt, the petitioners’ counsel, told TOI: “The petitioners — appointed as teachers on ad hoc basis in 1990 and regularised between 2002 and 2004 — have rendered over three decades of dedicated service. Some of them retired in 2024, while others are approaching retirement. In 2010, the state govt had decided to grant them the benefit of counting their ad hoc service… Based on this decision, they were duly granted financial benefits, and their service records were processed accordingly for retirement settlements.”
However, in a sudden move, the district education officer of Champawat raised objections, challenging the benefits’ validity, Bhatt said. “Subsequently, their pay scales have been revised, and a notification issued stating that all financial benefits disbursed during their service period are to be recovered”, claiming the recovery notices were issued on the pretext of “irregular disbursal of benefits”. Notably, one teacher was purportedly asked to return Rs 29 lakh, the petitioners claimed.
Source link