Disposed

lal bachan and 14 others v. State of U.P. and 6 others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2018WRIA/3892/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal of a writ petition directed the Principal Secretary (Secondary Education), Govt. of U.P., to allocate funds and issue directions within two months to pay the arrears of salary to teachers in district Ballia whose valid appointments had previously been accepted but whose salary had been withheld for five years, invoking Article 21 rights.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Principal Secretary (Secondary Education), Govt. of U.P., to allocate funds and issue directions within two months for payment of arrears of salary of validly appointed teachers in distri

lal bachan and 14 others Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3892 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Lal Bachan And 14 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Pursuant to an order passed in the case of Dhruv Narain Singh v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 26307 of 2010 , the salary of the teachers in district Ballia was stopped for five years. The said writ petition was finally disposed of on 13th January, 2017 by issuing the following directions:

¶6

"12. Accordingly, this batch of the writ petitions is disposed of with the following direction:

¶7

(i) In case any teacher/institution is aggrieved by the order passed by the Committee, it would be open to him/it to take such recourse which is available under the law to them.

¶8

(ii) The salary to all the teachers, who have been found to be working on the sanctioned post shall be released within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

¶9

The grievance of the petitioners is that their arrears of salary have not been paid in spite of the fact that it has been found that they have been working against the sanctioned posts and their appointment has also been found to be valid.

¶10

It is submitted that withholding the salary for last five years is arbitrary and even after the direction of this Court dated 13th January, 2017 the arrears of salary has not been paid.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State functionaries.

¶12

The experience reveals that a large number of writ petitions have been/are filed in this Court for the similar relief.

¶13

In my view, the ends of justice require that a direction be issued to the first respondent i.e. Principal Secretary (Secondary Education), Government of U.P., Lucknow to consider the matter and pass the appropriate order by issuing a direction to allocate necessary fund for the payment of arrears of salary of those teachers of district Ballia whose appointment has been found to be valid against the sanctioned posts and their salary has already been stopped for the last five years in compliance with the

¶14

order of this Court. The State Government has completed the exercise to find out the sanctioned strength of teaching and non-teaching staff in each college and has passed the necessary orders. In those cases where it has been found that posts have been duly sanctioned and the teachers are working against the said posts and no illegality has been found in their appointment, there is no reason to withhold the arrears of salary. The salary of teachers is their only source of livelihood and it is their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution to get their salary while they have been admittedly working for last several years uninterruptedly. In view of the said facts, necessary order be passed by the Principal Secretary (Secondary Education), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow for allocation of fund and necessary directions be also issued within two months from the date of communication of this order.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.2.2018 A. Pandey

lal bachan and 14 others v. State of U.P. and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

lal bachan and 14 others v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Digvijay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rekha Lal Vs State of U.P. through Education Madhyamik, U.P.

Indu Devi and 2 Orthers Vs State of U.P. and 1 Orthers

Waseem Ahmed Vs State of U.P., through Principle Secretary,(Basic Education), Sachiwalaya Building, and 4 others

Arpita Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Committee of Mangement Rai Bahadur Ghyanshyam Singh J.H.S. Vs State of Up and 2 Others