Disposed

Shyam Sunder TIWARIand Another v. D.I.O.S. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2018WRIA/1437/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a 17-year-old writ petition seeking salary regularization for teachers. The court observed that withholding salary pending an enquiry for such a duration served no useful purpose. Directions were issued for the enquiry to conclude within two months, and the earlier interim order to pay salary was conditionally reaffirmed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; enquiry directed to conclude within two months; earlier interim order reaffirmed conditionally.

Shyam Sunder TIWARIand Another Vs D.I.O.S… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1437 of 2001

¶3

Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Tiwari& Another Respondent :- D.I.O.S. & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- P.N Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,T.N.Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶6

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of manadmus commanding the respondent no.1 to pay the arrears of salary and current salary of the petitioners regularly in accordance with law."

¶7

At the fresh stage itself the court had passed a detailed interim order on 10.4.2001 which is quoted below:-

¶8

"Connect with Writ Petition Nos.47644 and 54893 of 1999.

¶9

Issue notice.

¶10

The petitioners were appointed as teacher. Their appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. Sri Sangam Lal Shukla. It appears that approval granted by Sri Sangam Lal Shukla, the the District Inspector of Schools have become controversial and enquiry is going on or is contemplated in regard to such approval. In the meantime by the impugned order dated 20.3.99 the present District Inspector of Schools has stopped the salary of the petitioners.

¶11

The enquiry is to be held in a large number of cases not merely in the cases of the petitioner cannot be asked to work without being paid for an indefinite period. Further the appointment of the petitioners was basically made by the management of the college and not by the district Inspector of Schools, who has merely accorded approval. Considering these facts it is directed that till the enquiry is completed as mentioned in the impugned order dated 10.3.99 the petitioners will be paid his salary regularly within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before the respondent no.1 or to show cause within the same period."

¶12

Thereafter on 1.4.2002 i.e. one year thereafter, the following order was passed:-

¶13

"Heard learned standing counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶14

It appears that the appointment of the petitioner was initially approved by the District Inspector of Schools but thereafter some enquiry started in respect to the validity of the approval order which related to the validity of the petitioner's appointment. This court directed that till the enquiry is completed, the petitioners are to be paid their salary and for that purpose, the respondents were given opportunity either to pay salary to the petitioners or to fie show cause within the period so provided. Learned

¶15

counsel for the petitioner submits that neither salary has been paid nor the respondents have come before this Court with any show cause. It has also been pointed out that the enquiry has also not been completed.

¶16

In view of this, the interim mandamus dated 10.4.2001 is hereby confirmed and till completion of enquiry, the petitioners will be entitled to receive their current salary. Of course, further entitlement to receive their current salary. Of course, further entitlement will depend on the outcome of the enquiry which is to be completed by the respondent no.1 within a period of two months to which the petitioners undertakes to co-operate. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners will file certified copy of this order alongwith an application before the District Inspector of Schools, within a week from today."

¶17

Today the matter was taken up for hearing after 17 years. Learned standing counsel prays for time by way of last opportunity. No such time may be granted keeping in mind that the writ petition is of year 2001 and long years have passed since then.

¶18

The petitioner complained, though his appointment was duly approved his salary/payment had been needlessly withheld without authority pending a preliminary enquiry to determine whether the approval granted to his appointment was valid or not.

¶19

Though it may be expected that the enquiry may have been completed by now, it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry is still pending. In view of the interim order quoted above even if the enquiry is still pending, the petitioner must be continuing to work and receive salary/payments for almost 17 years. Thus no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending any further.

¶20

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following observation and/or direction:-

¶21

(i) In the event the enquiry stands already concluded, the rights of the parties shall remain determined in terms of the decision that may have been made pursuant to such enquiry.

¶22

(ii) If however the enquiry is still pending, the same may be concluded necessarily within a period of two months from today. Only in that event, for a period of one month or till conclusion of the enquiry, which ever is earlier, the interim order granted earlier shall continue to remain in force.

¶23

Order Date :- 12.11.2018 Gaurav Pal

Shyam Sunder TIWARIand Another v. D.I.O.S. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder TIWARIand Another v. D.I.O.S. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narvadeshwar Singh Vs State of Up through Secy. Basic Education Up at Lko. and Ors.

Virendra Singh Rana Vs Iffco Tokiyo General Insruance Co. and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Vs Deputy General Manger Canara Bank and Others

M/S Jai Mata Ji Enterprises and Transport Co. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax

M/S Yadu Sugar Mill Ltd. Vs the Commissioner Commercial Taxes

Smt. Husan Ara Begum Vs State of U.P and Others