Allowed

Uma Shankar Pal v. Dios and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2019SPLA/197/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal allowed quashing impugned single judge order dismissing writ petition challenging termination of Class-IV government employee. Court directed continuation of salary and benefits despite alleged procedural lapses in prior approval. Previous stay order effective till special appeal decision.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.1.2014 and the order dated 8 September 1995 are quashed regarding the appellant. The respondent is directed to continue paying salary and benefits to the appellant.

Uma Shankar Pal Vs Dios and 3 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 197 of 2014

¶3

Appellant :- Uma Shankar Pal Respondent :- Dios And 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Singh Kaosik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2019

¶5

Heard Sri R.K. Singh Kaosik, learned counsel for the appellantapplicant and Sri Ghanshyam Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

This is an application to condone the delay in filing restoration application.

¶7

Cause shown in sufficient.

¶8

The delay in filing the restoration application is condoned.

¶9

The application is allowed.

¶10

Order on Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 2 of 2019

¶11

This is an application to recall the order dated 13.10.2017, dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.

¶12

Cause shown is sufficient.

¶13

The order dated 13.10.2017, dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution is recalled.

¶14

The appeal is restored to its original number.

¶15

The application is allowed.

¶16

Order on Memo of Appeal

¶17

The present special appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 27.1.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 26537 of 1996.

¶18

The contentions of the petitioner, in brief, are that the appellant-

¶19

petitioner was appointed on a Class-IV post in the year 1994, for which prior approval was taken and in fact subsequently on 15.10.1994, payment of salary was also sanctioned and approved by a separate order of the D.I.O.S. It is stated that vide order dated 8th September, 1995, the services of the petitioner were terminated only on the ground that all the appointments approved by the D.I.O.S. had been put in abeyance in pursuance to some order dated 19.8.1995 passed by the Director (Education). The said orders dated 8th September, 1995 and 19th August, 1995 were challenged by means of a Writ Petition No. 26537 of 1996.

¶20

While hearing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge recorded the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that prior approval of the D.I.O.S. was obtained on 8.3.1994, however without addressing on the issue the learned Single Judge recorded that no prior approval of the D.I.O.S. had been obtained by the Principal of the College and placing reliance of a Division Bench judgment, proceeded to dismiss the writ petition holding that the appointment of the petitioner is wholly illegal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the question of appointment of the appellant-petitioner was never in question and in fact a prior approval had been granted on 8.3.1994, as such the learned Single Judge had erred in dismissing the writ petition. He submits that the order impugned in the writ petition was the order dated 8th September, 1995, which was not even referred to while dismissing the writ petition and the question of initial appointment of the petitioner was never in question. He thus prays that the appeal be allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed.

¶22

A perusal of the impugned order dated 8th September, 1995

¶23

reveals that all the appointments made by the D.I.O.S. and as approved by him were kept in abeyance without there being any specific finding or error pointed out in the order dated 8th September, 1995. A perusal of the said order also makes it clear that no opportunity of hearing was given prior to the passing of the order dated 8th September, 1995. The learned Single Judge, in our respectful opinion, has not even reverted to the said impugned order and has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition holding the appointment of the petitioner itself to be illegal only on the ground that no prior approval of the D.I.O.S. was obtained by the Principal of College, whereas in the impugned order itself it has been recorded that the prior approval of the D.I.O.S. was obtained on 8.3.1994. The learned Single Judge has further not taken into consideration the order dated 15.10.1994, whereby the grant of salary to the petitioner was approved by the D.I.O.S. Thus, we are unable to agree with the impugned judgment dated 27.1.2014, in view of the facts recorded above. The appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶24

The special appeal is allowed. The order dated 27.1.2014 as well as the order dated 8th September, 1995 are quashed in so far as it relates to the appellant.

¶25

This Court while entertaining the appeal, had passed the following order on 25.2.2014:-

¶26

"Heard Shri R.K. Singh Kaosik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant.

¶27

Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. He prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The appellant will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶28

List for admission hearing on 29.4.2014.

¶29

It is submitted that the petitioner, along with three other Class IV employees, were appointed in Intermediate College, Machhali Shahar, Jaunpur for which financial approval was given by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur on 15.10.1994. On some doubts about their appointments the

¶30

District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur by his order dated 8.9.1985 stopped the salary of all four Class IV employees and proposed an enquiry into the appointment.

¶31

The petitioner filed a writ petition against the order dated 8.9.1995 in which a direction was issued to continue to pay the salary to the petitioner-appellant.

¶32

Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that prior approval of District Inspector of Schools in terms of Regulation 101 of Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was not taken.

¶33

It is submitted that no counter affidavit was filed and that there was no material to show that the prior approval was not taken. In any case, the then District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur had given the financial approval for payment of salary and that the enquiry initiated by the next incumbent in the office on 8.9.1995 had not been concluded. In the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioner's appointment was void ab initio.

¶34

Until further orders the effect and operation of the judgment dated 27.1.2014 in Writ A No.26537 of 1996 (Uma Shanker Pal vs. D.I.O.S. & ors) shall remain stayed. The respondents shall continue to pay the salary to the petitioner-appellant subject to result of the Special Appeal."

¶35

In view of the finding recorded above, we further direct that the respondent shall continue to pay the salary and other benefits to the appellant.

¶36

Order Date :- 10.7.2019 SR

¶37

[Pankaj Bhatia, J.] .... [Vikram Nath, J.]

Uma Shankar Pal v. Dios and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Shankar Pal v. Dios and 3 Ors.

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

Regalia Heights Apartment Owners Association Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Mahendra Singh Vs Chiddi Singh and 2 Others

M/S Sunstar Precision Forge Ltd. Vs Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority through Its CEO and Others

Anil Tiwari Vs Smt.Swarika Tiwari

Samrin and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Chhotey Lal Saroj Vs State of U.P. and Others