Allowed

Ghurai Lal Verma v. State and 6 Others

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2018WRIA/40796/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed orders cancelling the appointment approval and terminating the service of a petitioner Assistant Teacher. The court held allegations of double salary were not proved as his father's name differed from the teacher found at the second institution.

What did the court decide?

All service benefits including continuity in service granted; pension, gratuity, and other retiring dues to be paid within eight weeks.

Ghurai Lal Verma Vs State and 6 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40796 of 2014

¶3

Petitioner :- Ghurai Lal Verma Respondent :- State And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Singh Rajpoot,Jai Singh Parihar,R.V.S. Rajpoot

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajendra Singh,S.K. Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶6

Oral

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri S.K. Verma learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Officer/Nagar Siksha Adhikari, Farrukhabad.

¶8

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2014 passed by the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Kanpur Region Kanpur and the order dated 23.06.2014 passed by the District Basic Education Officer/ Nagar Shiksha Adhikari, Farrukhabad and has prayed for mandamus to be issued to the respondents to provide all pensionery benefits to the petitioner due to him under the law.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he completed his B.T.C. Training in 1976 and was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Shitala Junior High School, Farrukhabad on 01.07.1976. At the time when the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the said school it was not in Grant-in-Aid and came into Grant-in-Aid only in 1991.

¶10

Certain disgruntled elements filed a complaint against the petitioner. One Shiv Kumar wanted appointment of his

¶11

wife under Dying-in-Harness Rules in a Junior High School, namely, Krishak Janta Junior High School, Nagla Seth Samsabad, Farrukhabad, where the petitioner was also the President of the Committee of Management. When the petitioner did not oblige he filed a complaint before the Basic Education Officer. An enquiry was conducted by the Nagar Shiksha Adhikari on 13.07.2003. No irregularity was found in the appointment of the petitioner.

¶12

Later, the Assistant Joint Director of Education (Basic), Kanpur summoned the record from the Manager/ Head of Institution of Shitala Junior High School Barhapur, Farrukhabad, vide his letter dated 13.11.2003, and without giving opportunity of hearing stopped the salary of the petitioner on 19.11.2003.

¶13

The petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition and this Court directed the Competent Officer to complete the enquiry and till the completion of enquiry and the final orders passed therein, the order dated 19.11.2003 February 2003 for stopping the salary of the petitioner was to remain in abeyance.

¶14

Shiv Kumar, the alleged complainant did not respond to the letters of the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer submitted Enquiry Report saying that the allegations made against the petitioner were not found proved.

¶15

On similar facts one Nasir Ahmad also sent a complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State and enquiry was constituted again in the matter. It was alleged that the petitioner while being appointed as Assistant Teacher in

¶16

Shitala Junior High School Barhapur, Farrukhabad also took salary from the Co-operative Department as Kurk Ameen. He remained absent from duty from 30.06.1985 to 10.07.1986. It was also alleged that the petitioner had been working in another Junior High School, namely, K.S. Higher Secondary School Makrand Nagar Kannauj and took the salary from both the institutions simultaneously.

¶17

On 26.07.2013, only on the basis of such complaint an order dated 26.09.2013 was issued by the Nagar Shiksha Adhikari directing the petitioner to show cause/explain his case regarding charges levelled in the said complaint.

¶18

The petitioner challenged the order/notice dated 26.09.2013 in Writ Petition No. 62609 of 2013 Ghurai Lal Verma vs. State of U.P. and others. This Court had passed a detailed order disposing off the writ petition with a direction to the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Kanpur, to enquire into the complaint levelled against the petitioner and take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law. The Authority was directed to examine the previous complaints and the enquiry report and if the allegations were found to be similar he should forthwith drop the proceedings and instruct the subordinate authorities not to harass the employee and also to warn them not to undertake any such exercise in future.

¶19

In compliance of the judgment and order dated 29.11.2013 the petitioner filed a representation before the Assistant Director (Basic), Kanpur Region, Kanpur. By the the impugned order dated 18.06.2014 the representation was rejected by the Assistant Director (Basic) and he

¶20

issued a direction to the Basic Education Officer to terminate the service of the petitioner by cancelling the approval granted by him to his appointment nearly 30 years ago.

¶21

In pursuance of the order dated 18.06.2014, the Basic Education Officer has passed the order impugned dated 23.06.2014. The approval dated 20.07.1979 to the appointment of the petitioner as a Assistant Teacher in Shitala Junior High School Barhapur, Farrukhabad has been cancelled.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the matter has pointed out the Enquiry Report of the Nagar Shiksha Adhikari on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed. In the Enquiry Report dated 13.07.2003 the Nagar Shiksha Adhikari has informed the Basic Education Officer that the complainant Shiv Kumar had been issued a letter to co-operate in the enquiry and submit documentary evidence in support of his charge levelled against the petitioner. Sri Shiv Kumar produced photocopies of certain documents but did not file any affidavit verifying the contents of such photocopied documents. On enquiry being conducted it was found by the Nagar Shiksha Adhikari that the petitioner had worked in Co-operative Department w.e.f. 30.06.1985 to 10.7.1986 while taking leave from his Junior High School where he was teaching. The Principal/ Manager of the Institution had verified on 25.11.2002 that Sri Ghurai Lal Verma was on leave without pay. Hence the complaint regarding taking the salary from two departments simultaneously was not correct. With regard to the other

¶23

complaint relating to the petitioner working in K.S. Higher Secondary School, Azad Nagar, also at the same time when he was working on joint salary in Shitala Junior High School Barhapur, Farrukhabad, the Nagar Shiksha Adhikari found in an enquiry that one Ghurai Lal S/o Ram Bharose was Assistant Teacher in K.S. Higher Secondary School whereas the petitioner's father's name was Chote Lal. Therefore, this part of the complaint was also not made out against the petitioner.

¶24

It has been submitted that the Enquiry Report although, was submitted on 13.07.2003, it has been misconstrued and misinterpreted by the Assistant Director (Basic) Education in the order impugned. The Assistant Director of Education has referred the judgment and order dated 29.11.2013 and also to the Enquiry Report submitted by the Nagar Shiksha Adhikari and has come to a conclusion that only the Enquiry Report was submitted, but no final orders were passed therein and therefore, it could not be said that complaints made against the petitioner were dropped. They were still open to be enquired into by the Department.

¶25

Sri Nasir Ahmad, the other complainant had also made a similar complaint against the petitioner. His complaint dated 12.08.2013 has been extracted in the order impugned. The allegation made by the said complainant Nasir Ahmad is with regard to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher on 15.07.1976 in Shitala Junior High School Barhapur, Farrukhabad, and its approval on 20.07.1979 by the District Basic Education Officer Farrukhabad. It was alleged that at the same time

¶26

Ghurai Lal Verma was found working w.e.f. 01.12.1976 to December 1978 in K.S. Higher Secondary School, Makrand Nagar Kannauj. The other charge in the said complaint is with regard to the petitioner drawing salary from two departments at the same time and having worked as Kurk Ameen in Co-operative Department in Block Umaadi, Tehsil Kannauj, District Farrukhabad.

¶27

It has been submitted that the Assistant Director (Basic) Edcuation believed the charges as made out in the complaint only because the petitioner could not submit reply to the notice issued to him due to his ill health. He treated the charges as proved on the assumption that the petitioner had nothing to say in the matter. The Assistant Director has also referred to the Enquiry Report submitted by the Nagar Shiksha Adhikari dated 15.02.2013 that the petitioner was found working w.e.f. 30.06.1985 to 10.7.1986 in Co-operative Department as Kurk Ameen.

¶28

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has referred to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the contention raised therein that only Enquiry report was submitted by the Nagar Shiksha Adhikari earlier, and no final decision was taken thereon rejecting the complaint of Shiv Kumar. The matter had not been finalized and therefore, it was still open to the Education Authorities to consider similar charges raised in the complaint made by Sri Nasir Ahmad, the other complainant.

¶29

With regard to the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner, it has been submitted that the District

¶30

Inspector of Schools Farrukhabad and the Principal of the K.S. Higher Secondary School have admitted that the petitioner was working in the said School w.e.f.01.12.1976 to December 1978 during the same period he was also working in the Shitala Junior High School, Farrukhabad. It has been submitted that nobody can perform his duties in two institutions simultaneously.

¶31

However, in the counter affidavit there is no mention that one Ghurai Lal Verma s/o Ram Bharose was working in K.S. Higher Secondary School whereas the petitioner is Ghurai Lal Verma s/o. Chotey Lal.

¶32

In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner he has brought on record the letter sent by the Manager of Shitala Junior High School to the petitioner sanctioning leave without pay w.e.f. 03.01.1986 to 10.07.1986 with the condition that the petitioner shall resume his duty in the school w.e.f. 11.07.1986. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was working in Shitala Junior High School at the time when it was not taken under gran-in-aid. The institution came under Grant-in-Aid only in the year 1991 and petitioner started getting his salary from the State Exchequer under the Payment of Salaries Act, 1978 only since 1992. The management of Shitala Junior High School was paying the petitioner his salary from its own resources in 1986. The Manager of the Institution had sanctioned leave without pay to the petitioner for the period when he was working as Kurk Ameen in the Cooperative Department. It cannot be said that the petitioner was drawing double salary from two departments.

¶33

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as raised in the rejoinder affidavit and during the course of the arguments has not been specifically rebutted by the respondent. The petitioner has been found by this Court not to have drawn salary from two Departments of the Government simultaneously, as alleged in the order impugned. With regard to the name of the petitioner being different from the name of the father of the teacher Ghurai Lal working in K.S. Higher Secondary School Makrand Nagar Kannauj the case of the petitioner has also not been rebutted specifically by the respondents in the counter affidavit or in the order impugned.

¶34

The order dated 18.06.2014 passed by the Assistant Director (Basic) Education, Kanpur is therefore, set aside. The consequential order dated 23.06.2014 passed by the District Basic Education Officer/ Nagar Shiksha Adhikari, Farrukhabad is also set aside.

¶35

The writ petition is allowed.

¶36

The petitioner shall be given all his service benefits including continuity in service, but without salary for the period he remained out of job as a result of the order impugned.

¶37

The petitioner is said to have retired in the meantime, his pension and gratuity and other retiral dues shall be paid to him within eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authorities concerned.

¶38

Order Date :- 4.9.2018

¶39

A. Tripathi

Ghurai Lal Verma v. State and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghurai Lal Verma v. State and 6 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

Tota Ram Vs Deputy Commissioner Evam Deputy Registrar Cooperative, Meerut and 3 Others

Ram Autar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anand Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Swargiya Faujdar Yadav Mahila Shiksha Avam Prashikshan College and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash Kumar and 30 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sumit Kumar and 27 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others