Allowed

Baij Nath Prasad v. the Zila B.S.A. Gorakhpur and Others

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2018WRIA/25579/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting a teacher's claim for Assistant Teacher status after finding it passed without an opportunity of hearing. The Court granted retrospective arrears of salary and benefits from 1991 to 1995, deeming fresh remand too late.

What did the court decide?

Arrears of difference of salary and other benefits of Assistant Teacher post from 16.2.1991 to 11.9.1995 to be paid within six weeks.

Baij Nath Prasad Vs the Zila B.S.A… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25579 of 1995

¶3

Petitioner :- Baij Nath Prasad Respondent :- The Zila B.S.A., Gorakhpur & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M.A. Haseen,Vrindavan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,S.G. Hasnain

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

No one appears on behalf of the respondents.

¶7

Heard Shri M.A. Haseen, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the StateRespondents.

¶8

The petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 24.7.1995 passed by respondent No.1, District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, whereby he has rejected claim of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher (untrained), C.T. Grade and has accepted him to be an employee working on the post of peon.

¶9

The basic facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 2.1.1973 in C.T. Grade. The Institution where the petitioner is working, Raghurai Junior High School, Ram Nagar Karjahan, District Gorakhpur came in grant in aid list of the State Government in 1981 and in the managerial return, petitioner was shown to be a Class IVth employee in place of Assistant Teacher. On the allegations of the petitioner an inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Schools and a report dated 26.11.1990 was submitted in his favour with the findings that the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher and he was wrongly shown to be working as Class IVth employee. Order dated 16.2.1991 was passed in favour of the petitioner by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, which was subsequently reviewed vide order dated 25.7.1991.

¶10

The petitioner approached this Court against the order dated 25.7.1991 passed by the District Basic Education Officer by way of Writ Petition No.23421 of 1991, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Basic Education Officer for decision afresh. In pursuance of the

¶11

aforesaid order of this Court, order dated 6.7.1993/15.7.1993 was passed by the District Basic Education Officer in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.5, Shri Ravi Shankar Singh, who was appointed as Assistant Teacher on the post held by the petitioner, challenged the aforesaid order by way of Writ Petition No.18159 of 1994 praying for a direction for payment of salary and other benefits of the post of Assistant Teacher and both the writ petitions were decided by a common order dated 14.11.1994, quashing the order dated 6.7.1993/15.7.1993 of the District Basic Education Officer against Shri Ravi Shanker Singh only on the ground that it was passed in favour of the petitioner without affording any opportunity to Shri Ravi Shankar Singh.

¶12

The petitioner challenged the writ court's order dated 14.11.1994 in Special Appeal No.883 of 1994 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.1994 directing the District Basic Education Officer to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 together. Post of Respondent No.1 at that time was held by Smt. Mamta Srivastava, who heard the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 on 15.3.1995, but before passing any order she was transferred and replaced by Shri Hameed Uddin on 6.4.1995. Shri Hameed Uddin proceeded on leave and one Smt. Kamla Devi got temporary charge of the post of District Basic Education Officer. It is stated that this Smt. Kamla Devi passed impugned order dated 24.7.1995 without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner against which the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has produced all the documents in support of his case before the District Basic Education Officer Smt. Mamta Srivastava, who heard the petitioner at length, but thereafter the new incumbent Smt. Kamla Devi neither heard nor perused the material on record and has passed the impugned order dated 24.7.1995 in collusion with the respondent No.3, the Committee of Management and respondent No.5, Shri Ravi Shankar Singh, who is the son of the manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution. At the time of filing of the writ petition an interim order dated 12.9.1995 was passed in his favour permitting the petitioner to work and he was directed to be paid his salary.

¶14

The petitioner claims that on the basis of the interim order

¶15

he has worked and retired on 30.6.2015. Working on the post of Assistant Teacher he has drawn his salary all through and is now getting pension also.

¶16

The only relief sought by the petitioner is that he may be given arrears of difference of salary and other benefits of the post of Assistant Teacher from 16.2.1991, when the first order was passed by the District Basic Education Officer up to 11.9.1995, when the interim order was passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner and he was permitted to work by the respondents as Assistant Teacher. In view of the fact that the claim of the petitioner was repeatedly considered and set aside and finally order dated 24.7.1995 was passed without considering the evidence led by him before the District Basic Education Officer and without affording any opportunity of hearing, therefore, it is too late to remand the matter for decision afresh. Impugned order dated 24.7.1995 passed by respondent No.1, District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur is quashed.

¶17

Writ petition stands allowed.

¶18

Respondents shall be paid arrears of difference of his salary and other benefits of the post of Assistant Teacher and Class IVth employee from 16.2.1991 to 11.9.1995 within a period of six weeks from the date of the presentation of a certified copy of this order before respondent No.1.

¶19

Order Date :- 29.3.2018 T. Sinha

Baij Nath Prasad v. the Zila B.S.A. Gorakhpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baij Nath Prasad v. the Zila B.S.A. Gorakhpur and Others

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

Smt. Vimla Devi Vs Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Ors.

Vinay Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and others

Jagveer @ Jaggo Vs State of U.P.

Ram Pal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ashok Singh Vs D.I.O.S. Ghazipur and Others

Mahesh Narayan Mishra and 89 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.