Dismissed

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2018WRIA/25896/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging District Magistrate's order withholding petitioner's salary. Held order passed without jurisdiction as DM lacked administrative control. Impugned order kept in abeyance, petitioner directed to approach Director, Local Bodies.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order kept in abeyance; direction to file representation before Director, Local Bodies.

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

¶1

Court No. - 16 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25896 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Chaudhary,Harshvir Pratap Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Mani Shukla

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri S.M. Shukla who appears on behalf of the respondent no. 6.

¶4

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the District Magistrate withholding the salary of the petitioner.

¶5

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as an Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bulandshahar and the District Magistrate has no administrative control over an Executive Officer, at the most he can on the basis of alleged irregularities in the conduct of the petitioner as a Government servant refer his matter to the Director, Local Body who can take appropriate administrative action in the matter.

¶6

It has been submitted that the District Magistrate while passing the order, stopping the salary of the petitioner on 14.5.2018 asked the petitioner to submit his reply to the show cause notice within a period of two days. In pursuance of the order dated 14.5.2018, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 17.5.2018, explaining that he was working all the time during the period when the storm had occurred at Bulandshahar, and thereafter also submitted his reminder for appropriate decision with regard to release of salary of the petitioner on 11.6.2018 and 9.8.2018. Till date no action has been taken by the District Magistrate and his salary has continued to remain withheld on the order dated 14.5.2018.

¶7

It has been submitted that petitioner was promoted on 6.11.2018 and os now working as Additional Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur. He still continues to suffer because of order passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, who has no administrative control over the services of the petitioner.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Anjali Soni Vs. State of U.P. & others 2018 (1) AWC 736 wherein the writ petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Chitrakoot stopping her salary.

¶9

This Court referred to the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 and had observed that the District Basic Education Officer has no administrative control over the writ petitioner who was Headmistress in a primary school, being run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. This Court also observed that the action of withholding of salary had been taken on the direction of a political person / MLA and the independent application of mind by the District Basic Education Officer was not done in the matter.

¶10

This Court without expressing any opinion on the applicability of the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench in Smt. Anjali Soni (supra) finds that the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar to have been passed without due diligence and application of mind as to whether he had any administrative control over the conduct of an Executive Officer of a Nagar Palika Parishad. At the most he could have referred the matter for initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and suspension, during the conduct of such disciplinary proceedings to the Director, Local Bodies who would have further referred the matter to the Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas to take appropriate decision.

¶11

In this case, the order impugned being without jurisdiction is kept in abeyance.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to

¶13

the petitioner to file a representation against the order dated 14.5.2018 before the Director, Local Bodies, who shall consider and decide the grievance of the petitioner regarding non payment of salary and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month from the date of such representation along with certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.12.2018 Arif

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Janam Prasad P.N.O. No. 890660012 Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chotey Lal P.N.O. No. 890680290 and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Niranjan Dubey and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sheo Pal Vs D.I.O.S. Allahabad and Others

Akhilendra Nath Maurya Vs Union of India and 2 Othrs.

Vishwanth Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others