Disposed

Shikhar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2018WRIA/8899/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Inspector of Schools to investigate the petitioner's salary grievance and ensure payment within two months after giving the institution's management a hearing opportunity, despite pending appeals challenging the salary sanction.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to ensure payment of petitioner's salary within two months after hearing the fourth respondent.

Shikhar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8899 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Shikhar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

With the consent of parties, without issuing notice to the fourth respondent, the present Writ Petition is being finally heard and decided.

¶7

Petitioner, who is working as Assistant Teacher in Ram Krishna Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya Pawara Jaunpur, is before this Court with the request to command the respondents to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner pursuant to sanction of grant-in-aid dated 25.01.2016 issued by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. at Lucknow. Further prayer has been made to command the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur (third respondent) to comply with the directions/orders issued by the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. at Lucknow (second respondent) vide letter/order dated 02.03.2017, 22.03.2017 and 15.01.2018.

¶8

Record in question reflects that Ram Krishna Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya Pawara Jaunpur has been brought in grantin-aid vide order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the second respondents pursuant to the Government order dated 11.08.2015 in which one post of Principal and three Assistant Teachers including petitioner's name has been sanctioned under grant-in-aid. It

¶9

appears that in spite of the said fact, the salary of the petitioner has not been ensured and aggrieved with the same petitioner has been running from pillar to post. Meanwhile the Director of Education (Madhyamik) vide order dated 22.03.2017 has asked the District Inspector of Schools concerned to ensure salary of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the District Inspector of Schools concerned vide order dated 01.04.2017 has directed for payment of salary to the petitioner. It appears that the Committee of Management of the Institution had preferred a Writ Petition no.15851/2017 challenging the order of grant of approval for payment of salary to the petitioner and this Court vide order dated 17.04.2017 has disposed of the writ petition with following observations:-

¶10

"A dispute has been raised by the Committee of Management with regard to the continuance of respondent no.6 in the institution and at the behest of the Committee of Management even the DIOS after passing the first salary bill did not mention the name of respondent no.6, as such, in my view it would be appropriate that the Committee of Management and respondent no.6 appear before the Director, Sanskrit Education who will consider the claim of both the parties and after giving opportunity of hearing and verification of document shall decide the dispute within a specified time to be fixed by the Director, Sankrit Education after notice to the parties."

¶11

Thereafter in response thereof, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, the second respondent has passed order on 15.01.2018 in which the claim of the petitioner has been accepted and sanction of grant-in-aid dated 25.01.2016 was affirmed. It further reflects that the said order has also been assailed by the Management by preferring Writ Petition no.3368/2018, which is still pending consideration and no interim order has been passed therein.

¶12

In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner has never been refused or rejected by any competent Court of law and even the same has been accepted by the second respondent while passing the order dated 15.01.2018 but the Management for

¶13

the reason best known to it is creating all sort of obstacle in the working of the petitioner and not at all releasing the salary in question.

¶14

This Court has the occasion to peruse the record in question and finds that twice the Management has been before this Court assailing the said approval by preferring Writ Petition no.15851/2017 and Writ Petition no.3368/2018 but at no point of time the Court has intervened in the matter. It is true that Writ Petition no.3368/2018 is still pending consideration but it is also equally true that at no point of time any interim order has been passed by this Court in the matter.

¶15

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has not disputed the said situation and submits that direction may be issued to the third respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order.

¶16

In view of the above, this Court proceeds to direct the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to look into the grievance of the petitioner and ensure payment of salary to the petitioner in the light of the orders passed by second respondent expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after providing opportunity of hearing to the fourth respondent.

¶17

With these, Writ Petition is disposed of . Order Date :- 29.3.2018 A. Pandey

Shikhar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shikhar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Arun Kumar Sharma Vs State of Up and Another

Dayawati Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Sundar and 32 Others Vs State of Up and 4 Others

Pratima Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kanhai Ram Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Prasad Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others