Disposed

Vijay Kumar and Others v. Principal Chowdhary Laxmi Narain Inter College and Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2018WRIA/62448/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking arrears of salary from 1999 to 2008. The Court directed the petitioner to move the District Inspector of Schools for the determination of the quantum of salary, which the authority must dispose of after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; petitioners directed to move District Inspector of Schools via Committee of Management for salary determination within six weeks.

Vijay Kumar and Others Vs Principal Chowdhary Laxmi… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 62448 of 2008

¶3

Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar & Others Respondent :- Principal Chowdhary Laxmi Narain Inter College & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajit Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are claiming two substantial reliefs:

¶6

“a). commanding the respondents to pay arrears of salary to the petitioners.

¶7

b). permit the petitioners to work as Assistant Teachers in the Chaudhary Laxmi Narain Inter College, Mandi Shyam Nagar, District Gautam Budh Nagar.”

¶8

The controversy giving rise to the present petition is only because of the rival disputes between two Committees of Management of the institution: namely one of Ashok Kumar Sharma; and the other of Ramesh Kumar Chaudhary. The Committee of Management of Ashok Kumar Sharma had made appointments of petitioners after seeking prior approval of District Inspector of Schools which was accorded on 16.10.1997 and appointment order issued on 1.11.1997, pursuance to which, the petitioners reported for joining on 7.11.1997. They were also paid salary upto 31sth March, 1999. However, thereafter on account of Management dispute in the institution, petitioners were not paid salary though they were permitted to work till 8 July, 2008. Thereafter they were not permitted to work and in the meanwhile the matter was referred to the Regional Committee for decision in the matter of rival disputes between the parties (supra). Regional Committee finally took decision on 27.06 2007 upholding the Committee of Management Ashok Kumar Sharma to be valid one and subsequently appointments of the petitioners made by the Committee of Managment Sri Ashok Sharma, were held to be valid. Findings are returned in the order of Regional Committee had quoted hereunder:

¶9

fu.kZ;

¶10

“ekeys ds lEiw.kZ rF;ksa ,oa lk{;ksa ,oa tkap vf/kdkjh dh vk[;k rFkk ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] xkSrecq}uxj dh vk[;k fnukad 21&05&2007 ,oa 30&05&2007 d vk/kkj ij e.Myh; lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 25&06&2007 esa fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd fu.kZ; gksus ds

¶11

i'pkr tqykbZ 2007 esa fo|ky; [kqyus ij okLrfod :i ls dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls Jh fot; dqekj] Jh eqds'k dqekj ,oa Jh lUrks"k dqekj] lgk;d v/;kid lEc} izkbZejh vuqHkkx dks osru Hkqxrku gsrq lgefr iznku dh tkrh gS A

¶12

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 12&12&2006 Jh v'kskd dqekj iq= Jh [kekuh flag dh fu;qfDr ij Hkh izHkkoh gksrk gS fdUrq Jh v'kksd dqekj fd fu;fDr ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] cqyUn'kgj ds i+=kad @ 3994&3995& izcU/k@2005&06 fnukad 22&12&2005 ds }kjk izkbejh ikB'kkyk Hknok] fodkl {ks= [kqtkZ ¼cqyUn'kgj½ esa lgk;d v/;kid ds in ij gks pqdh gS vkSj ;gka yxkrkj dk;Zjr gS rFkk osru izkIr dj jgs gSa ,slh fLFkfr esa Jh v'kksd dqekj dh fu;qfDr Lor% fujLr gks tkrh gS] vkSj og fdlh izdkj dk ykHk ikus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gS A

¶13

g0@& g0@& g0@& ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd mi f'k{kk funs'kd ¼ek/;fed½ la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd xkSrecq}uxj izFke e.My] esjB izFke e.My] esjB“

¶14

However, decision of the Regional Committee was challenged in writ petition no. 33472 of 2007, in which no orders were passed, and that writ petition has remained pending . Under the circumstances, present writ petition was filed with the aforesaid two prayers, which are quoted hereinabove. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court on 3rd December, 2008 passed following order.

¶15

" Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 3,4, and 5.

¶16

Issue notice to respondent nos. 1 and 2 returnable within eight weeks.

¶17

Each one of the respondent is granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶18

List after eight weeks.

¶19

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that their appointment had been duly approved by the Educational Authorities. Against the said order, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33472 of 2007 had been filed wherein no interim order has been passed and observation has been made that any appointment made shall abide by final order to be passed by this court. petitioners submit that once there is no legal impediment, then in all eventuality, they are entitled to function and receive their remuneration in lieu of the same but Principal is not complying with the directions. Once Principal and Management are not complying with the directives issued by the authority concerned, then said authority has got ample power as envisaged in U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 by getting management superseded, in case management in not taking action against the Principal, who is bent upon not to comply with directions.

¶20

On the next date fixed, specific details shall be furnished, as to what further action has been taken in this regard qua functioning of petitioner."

¶21

In compliance of the order of this Court passed on 03.12.2008 the order was passed by Principal Chaudhary Laxmi Narain Inter College,

¶22

Mandi Shyam Nagar, District Gautam Budh Nagar on 19.12.2008 directing the petitioners to join back and resume their duties and it is thus from 19.12.2008, petitioners have been discharging their duties as Assistant Teachers in the institution and have further been promoted in LT Grade w.e.f. 28th September, 2012. Thus prayer of the petitioners is now confined to the payment of salary w.e.f. 1st April, 1999 till 8th July, 2008. It has come on record that petitioners have discharged continuously their duties from 1999 to 2008 and for a period, a short break only, they were not permitted to work, but thereafter they were given permission to work under the orders of Principal on 19.12.2008.

¶23

The petitioner is directed to move appropriate application/representation to the District Inspector of Schools through the Committee of Management for payment of salary as claimed, within a period of six weeks from today and the same shall be considered and disposed of by the third respondent within further period of six weeks after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 21.5.2018 Sanjeev

Vijay Kumar and Others v. Principal Chowdhary Laxmi Narain Inter College and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar and Others v. Principal Chowdhary Laxmi Narain Inter College and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Khilari Vs State of U.P. and Others

Committee of Management Bharat Sewak Samaj Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jagdish Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunder Lal Vs R.M. U.P.S.R.T.C. Agra and Others

Santosh Singh and Others. Vs State of U.P and Others.

Suresh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others