Allowed

Minakshi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2018WRIA/13576/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the withholding of a teacher's salary pending verification of teaching experience certificates. The court directed the District Basic Education Officer to complete verification within three weeks and pass an appropriate order after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to conclude verification within three weeks and pass an appropriate order after hearing.

Minakshi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13576 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Minakshi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Krishna Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

Heard Sri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1,2 and 4 and Sri J.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 5.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned order dated 30.12.2017 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad, respondent no.5.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a similar impugned order was challenged in Writ -A No.13135 of 2018 (Smt. Neetu Agrawal v. State of U.P. and 4 others ), which was disposed of by order dated 3.7.2018 as under :

¶8

"Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri A.K.Yadav holding brief of Shri J.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶9

Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 30.12.2017 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad only to the extent that the payment of the salary has been stayed till verification of the records. He submits that the petitioner was appointed by order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the respondent No.4 and that appointment has not been cancelled or interfered with by any authority or Court. Therefore, the action of the respondent No.4 to stop the payment of salary by order dated 30.12.2017, is wholly arbitrary and illegal.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.4 jointly submit that six months have passed since passing of the order dated 30.12.2017 and, therefore, verification must have been made so far and even if, the verification has not been concluded, it shall be concluded within a time bound period and a clear order shall be passed.

¶11

I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition.

¶12

In paragraph 14 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that she was appointed by letter dated 10.10.2015 issued by the respondent No.4 and since then she is continuously working and salary was being paid to her month to month from the State exchequer till the impugned order dated 30.12.2017 was passed.

¶13

Perusal of the impugned order dated 30.12.2017 shows that certain complaints were made which were examined by Divisional Joint Director of Education (Basic) Division-I, Meerut and a direction was issued for verification of teaching experience certificate as provided under Rule 2 (Chh) and Rule 4 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. More than six months have passed but verification has not been completed

¶14

by the Respondent No.4 so far and the salary of the petitioner is being withheld. This cannot be appreciated.

¶15

Under the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.4, District Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad, to conclude the verification within three weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within next three weeks, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶16

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of."

¶17

Learned standing counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 5 jointly state that the controversy is covered by the aforesaid judgment in the Case of Smt. Neetu Agrawal (supra) and, therefore, this writ petition may be disposed of in the same terms and conditions.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of on the same terms and conditions as contained in the order dated 3.7.2018 in Writ-A No. 13135 of 2018 (Smt. Neetu Agrawal v. State of U.P. and 4 others).

¶19

Order Date :- 11.7.2018 Ak/

Minakshi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minakshi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Shanker Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Umesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shivam Bhardwaj and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Subhash Chandra Laboratory Attendant (Botany) Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Neel Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others