Disposed

Ram Aashish Bharti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2018WRIA/2936/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Class-IV employee at a recognized institution in Ballia District, filed a writ petition for arrears of salary and bonus. The court directed the District Inspector of Schools to examine the grievance and redress it within two months without deciding the substantive merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia to examine the petitioner's grievance regarding arrears of salary and bonus and redress it within two months.

Ram Aashish Bharti Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2936 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Aashish Bharti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr J.P.N. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 to 4.

¶5

Notice need not be issued to the private respondents nos.5 & 6 in view of the order proposed to be passed.

¶6

The petitioner is before this Court with request to issue direction to the respondents to pay his difference of arrears of salary from July, 2010 to February, 2016 and arrears of bonus from the financial years 2009-10 to 2015-16 alongwith interest.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sri Gandhi Mahavidhyalaya Malaynagar Malap District Ballia is duly recognized institution and receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. The provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of the Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable on the institution. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Class-IV employee in the institution in the year 2008. Thereafter, the Principal of the institution sought approval of the petitioner's appointment from the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia. Consequently, the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh granted financial approval for his appointment as Class-IV employee on 22.10.2008. After granting approval to his appointment, the petitioner received his salary from October, 2008 to October, 2010.Meanwhile, one Dhruv Narain Singh filed a Writ Petition No.26307 of 2010 assailing the validity of the appointment of several teachers of Janata Inter College Nagara, Ballia. Initially, the matter was entertained by this Court and an interim order was passed on 18.5.2015 to the following effect:-

¶8

"Taking into consideration, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General, the following directions are issued:

¶9

A fresh Committee shall be constituted under the chairmanship of Additional Director of Education (Secondary), consisting of Finance Officer, Directorate of Secondary Education, District Inspector of Schools, Ballia and Joint Director of Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, as its Members.

¶10

The State Government shall send the entire record of the District Ballia including the objections of 57 institutions to the Committee within three weeks. The Committee shall issue a public notice in widely circulated daily newspapers in district Ballia inviting fresh objections, documents etc. in support of their case.

¶11

The committee shall give the personal hearing to the aggrieved teachers / non-teaching staff / Management/ Committee of Management / Authorised Controller.

¶12

The public notice shall be issued by the Additional Director within ten days after receiving the records from the State Government inviting objections to be filed within two weeks from the date of publication of the notice. The Director shall inform the institutions individually indicating the date of hearing, under the registered cover.

¶13

The Committee shall submit its report to the Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Govt., Lucknow within three months.

¶14

The decision shall be taken by the Secretary within the next two months on the basis of the material on record. No personal hearing is required to be given to the institutions.

¶15

It is made clear that if the respondents fail to comply with the aforesaid directions within time-schedule, mentioned hereinabove, the Court will consider to vacate the interim order, whereby the salary of all the teachers of district Ballia has been stopped."

¶16

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Principal Secretary, Education Department-12, Government of UP had proceeded to pass a detailed order on 1.2.2016 for payment of salary of the petitioner. In compliance thereof, the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 11.3.2016 had directed the Committee of Management/Principal of the institution to submit salary bill of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Manager/Principal of the institution submitted the arrears of bill of the petitioner for the period from July, 2010 to February, 2016 and bonus for the financial years 2009-10 to 2015-16 (Annexure no.7 to the writ petition).

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner precisely submits that the petitioner is receiving the current salary but the arrears of salary and bonus for the period in question have not been ensured by the department concerned and as such, this Court should direct the competent authority to decide the claim set up by the petitioner.

¶18

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents has no objection to the said prayer.

¶19

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia to look into the grievance of the petitioner and redress the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.1.2018 RKP

Ram Aashish Bharti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Aashish Bharti v. State of U.P.

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

Rajesh Mishra and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Jyotsana Awasthi Vs Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad U.P.

Subhash Kumar and 78 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Chandrabhan Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ram Prasad Seth Vs State of U.P.