Quashed

Chotey Lal Verma and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2018WRIA/57961/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting salary claims of teachers and issued a mandamus directing the authority to conduct a fresh hearing with notice, document exchange, and an opportunity of hearing, adhering to principles of natural justice within six months.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 29.08.2009 is quashed; a mandamus is issued directing the authorities to conduct a hearing within six months following natural justice principles, including notice, document submission

Chotey Lal Verma and Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57961 of 2009 Petitioner :- Chotey Lal Verma & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pd Tripathi,Seemant Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

The petitioners were appointed against various teaching and other posts in the Ram Kishore Smarak Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Hariharpur, District Pratapgarh. The tabulated chart depicting posts against which the petitioners were appointed along with respective dates of appointment is extracted here under:-

¶7

Petitioners	Post	Date of appointment
ChoteyLal Verma	Headmaster	27.06.1981
Sita Ram Verma	Assistant Teacher	27.06.1981
Sriram Verma	Assistant Teacher	01.08.1983
Hafizuddin	Assistant Teacher	01.08.1983
Ram Naresh Verma	Assistant Clerk	27.06.1981
Matai	Class IV	27.06.1981
Nanoo	Class IV	01.08.1983
Ram Dulare	Class IV	01.08.1983

¶8

The institution was brought within the purview of grant in aid on 01.12.2006. The claim of salary of the petitioners have been rejected by the order dated 29.08.2009 passed by the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad Region, Allahabad. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2009 rejecting their claim for salaries. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 29.08.2009 in the instant writ petition.

¶9

Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the findings recorded in the impugned order to the effect that the petitioners did not appear for hearing on 27.07.2009 and failed to submit their credentials and documents in support of their appointments are perverse. The order has

¶10

¶11

been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He called attention to the categorical assertions made in this regard in the writ petition.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State relies on the recitals in the impugned order to contend that the petitioners did not avail themselves of the opportunity of hearing. The impugned order dated 29.08.2009 records that the petitioners were required to be present for hearing on 27.07.2009. The petitioners failed to appear on the aforesaid date. Further the order also finds that the petitioners did not submit any document in support of their claim for salary.

¶13

In the writ petition it has been specifically asserted that the documents in support of the validity of their appointments and claim for salary were duly submitted in the office of Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Allahabad Region, Allahabad. It is categorically asserted that no hearing date subsequent to 01.06.2009 was intimated to the petitioners. The aforesaid averments are not refuted in the counter affidavit.

¶14

In view of the stand taken by the parties in their pleadings, the hearing which took place on 27.07.2009 was exparte to the petitioner. The respondent authority while passing the order dated 29.08.2009 has adopted a procedure not known to law and has violated the principles of natural justice. The specific case of the petitioner that the relevant documents had been filed before the authority, is asserted in paragraph 27 of the writ petition and the same has not been denied in the counter affidavit.

¶15

In this view of the matter the finding in the impugned order that the documents were not made available by the petitioner is perverse and based on no material in the record.

¶16

The order dated 29.08.2009 passed by the respondent no. 2 is arbitrary and illegal. The order dated 29.08.2009 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondent authorities for fresh consideration. A mandamus is issued to the respondent no. 2 to execute the following directions:-

¶17

(i) The respondent no. 2 shall issue notice to the petitioners and other necessary parties fixing a date for hearing.

¶18

(ii) After service of such notice the petitioners shall submit their relevant documents and representation to the respondent no. 2. The pleadings and

¶19

¶20

documents interse the necessary parties shall be exchanged before the hearing commences.

¶21

(iii) All material which is adverse to the petitioner and proposed to be relied upon by the respondent no. 2 while giving the decision on the controversy shall be provided in advance to the petitioner.

¶22

(iv) The respondent no. 2 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶23

(v) The respondent no. 2 shall pass a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law after the hearing.

¶24

The exercise mentioned above shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

Order Date :- 19.9.2018 Pravin

Chotey Lal Verma and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chotey Lal Verma and Others 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

Govind Prasad Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Others

Naresh Chand Verma Vs Commissioner Meerut Division and Others

Nanak Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shiv Shankar Mall Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mukesh Kumar Vs Dy. Inspector General C.R.P.F. and Others

Smt. Mandvi Vs State of U P and 2 Others