Disposed

Prabhu Nath Prasad v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018WRIA/51046/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a thirteen-year-old writ petition seeking salary arrears. Finding the matter hinged on factual disputes regarding appointment approval and document availability suitable for an administrative inquiry, the court directed the petitioner to approach the District Institute of Education and Selection (DIOS) with fresh representations and mandatory notice mechanisms.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation before DIOS Ballia within two weeks. DIOS must issue notice and ensure reasoned final order.

Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51046 of 2005

¶4

Petitioner :- Prabhu Nath Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kr. Pandey,Ashok K.Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶9

“issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondent to pay salary to the
petitioner which is due from the date
of his joining the Institution.”

¶10

In brief, the petitioner claims to have been regularly appointed on the post of Peon at the P.N. Inter College, Dube Chhapra, Ballia. It is further stated that such post had been advertised on 01.01.1991 after the appointment of the petitioner had been approved by the DIOS, Ballia by the order dated 24.06.1991. A typed copy thereof has been annexed with the writ petition. It is in such facts that the petitioner claims that he has been wrongly not paid his salary as it became due to him from

¶11

¶12

time to time.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit whereby the State appears to have denied the existence of the approval letter dated 24.06.1991 on the reasoning that the dispatch register does not contain details of any such order having been issued at the relevant time.

¶14

Then relying on paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that a notice was issued to the Principal of the Institution to make available documents to establish the regularity of the appointment granted to the petitioner. However, the Principal of the Institution is alleged to have not made available such documents.

¶15

The Committee of Management though impleaded as a respondent in the present proceedings has not filed any response to the writ. The writ petition has itself remained pending for almost thirteen years. As such no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending any further or calling from any further affidavits for any of the parties.

¶16

In the first place, it is observed that merely because the dispatch entry with respect to the order of the approval dated 24.06.1991 claimed by the petitioner may not have been found, it may not constitute conclusive evidence of that order having not been passed. A detailed enquiry into that fact would be required to be made by the DIOS, Ballia to determine whether or not such order had ever been passed. As to

¶17

¶18

the conduct of the Principal of the institution in having not made available to the DIOS, the documents sought for, no firm conclusion can be drawn at this stage inasmuch as the Committee of Management has not filed any response. Even otherwise a firm findings of fact will have to be recorded by the DIOS as to whether any approval had been sought. Such finding, even if recorded in the negative would have to be based upon or may have to be refer to the records of the DIOS maintained at the relevant time. This is to say that even if the DIOS has to record a finding that no approval had been granted on 24.06.1991, he would still have to give reasons to reach that conclusion.

¶19

In view of all such facts, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶20

(i) The petitioner may file fresh representation before the DIOS, Ballia voicing his grievances as have been raised in the present writ petition. He may support the representation with his personal affidavit and such documents as he may be advised. The representation may be filed within a period of two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order.

¶21

(ii) In the event, DIOS Ballia proposes to reject the representation so filed by the petitioner, he may necessarily first issue a notice to the petitioner as also the Committee of Management of the Institution within a period of one month from the date of receipt of representation clearly indicating the points on which the representation is proposed to be rejected.

¶22

¶23

(iii) The petitioner of the Committee of Management shall have two weeks and no more time from the date of receipt of such notice to file their final reply, if any.

¶24

(iv) Upon the receipt of such final reply or lapse of time, the DIOS Ballia shall proceed to pass a final order on petitioner's representation strictly in accordance with law giving reasons for his conclusions.

¶25

The aforesaid exercise may necessarily be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of representation of the certified copy of this order.

¶26

Order Date :- 22.11.2018 S.Chaurasia

Prabhu Nath Prasad v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu Nath Prasad v. State of U.P. 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

Ram Abhilash Srivastava Vs Commissioner Allahabad and Others

Krishna Kumar Tripathi and Others Vs Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Others

The Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Tilhar Shahjahanpur Vs Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow

M/S Shri Vishnu Rice Mill Vs Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow

Elcomponics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another

Data Technosys(Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 2 Others