Disposed

Smt. Pushpa Devi and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2019WRIA/14863/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to direct respondents to pay salary and arrears from April 2017 after the order cancelling the aided school's recognition was stayed by this Court. Court directed the Additional Director to decide on salary payment within two months, considering the stay. Quality: thin

What did the court decide?

Directed Additional Director (Basic Education) to pass appropriate order on payment of salary within two months.

Smt. Pushpa Devi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 16 RESERVED

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14863 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Pushpa Devi And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate, Shri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Chaturvedi

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vijay Shanker Prasad and Sri Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 3 and 4.

¶7

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioners salary from government grant regularly. A further prayer was made to disburse the petitioners their arrears of salary on their respective posts which was illegally held w.e.f. April, 2017.

¶8

The facts in brief, as narrated in the writ petition are that the institution in question viz. Kumkum Devi Kanya Junior High School, Letuhi Khejuri, district Ballia is a recognized and aided junior high school and is governed by the provisions of U.P Basic Education Act, 1972 and the rules framed there under viz. U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978. The institution in question came in the grant in aid list for the first time , w.e.f. 1.12.2006 vide Government Order dated 2^nd December, 2006. Subsequently, an order was passed by the Additional Director Education (Basic) Azamgarh sanctioning the payment of salary to petitioner no. 1 as Headmistress, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 as Assistant Teacher, petitioner no. 6 as Clerk and petitioner no. 7 as Class IV employee.

¶9

Petitioner no. 4 was appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers in pursuance to the approval order passed by the District Basic

¶10

¶11

Education Officer on 12^th June, 2015. After the aforesaid approval was granted, appointment letters were issued in their favour on 22.6.2015.

¶12

Petitioner no. 5 was appointed vide letter of appointment dated 31.7.2015 after approval was granted by the District Basic Education Officer. The aforesaid appointment was made on compassionate basis.

¶13

Petitioners no. 1,2,3,6 and 7 were getting their salaries from the State exchequer w.e.f. December, 2006, while petitioners no. 4 and 5 were paid their salary regularly from the State exchequer from the date of their appointment, as stated above. All the petitioners were getting their salary regularly till March, 2017.

¶14

On 3.4.2017 an order was passed by the District Basic Education Officer revoking the recognition of the institution in question. The order was passed on the basis of some allegations regarding the land on which the institution in question is existing.

¶15

Aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.2017, the management of the institution preferred writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 19644 of 2017 (Committee of Management, Kumkum Devi Kanya Junior High School Letuhi Khejuri, Ballia Vs. State of U.P. and others). In the said writ petition an interim order was granted on 28.2.2018. The aforesaid writ petition is still pending and the interim order is continuing even today.

¶16

Subsequently, upon passing of the order dated 3.4.2017 the District Basic Education Officer has withheld the salary of the petitioners from April, 2017. The only reason assigned for withholding the salary of the petitioners was the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer dated 3.4.2017.

¶17

In paragraph 17 of the writ petition it is contented that neither the services of the petitioners have been terminated nor the order of

¶18

¶19

approval have been revoked by the educational authorities. Each of the petitioners continue to function and discharge all the duties of their posts in the institution to the full and complete satisfaction of the respondent authorities.

¶20

It is contented that inspite of the fact that the order dated 3.4.2017 was passed against the institution has already been stayed, the salary of the petitioners were not released.

¶21

In this regard the manager of the institution has filed representations on 12.3.2018 and 2.4.2018. It is contended that till date no orders were passed on the aforesaid representations and without any reason and inspite of the fact that the order dated 3.4.2017 has already been stayed by this Court, salary of the petitioners were not released.

¶22

In the circumstances, it was argued by Sri Khare, learned Senior Counsel that since the order passed against the institution has already been stayed, the petitioners became entitled for payment of their salary. It is further contended that the order of approval granted by the competent authority in favour of the petitioners are existing even today and till date no adverse order is passed, the petitioners are entitled for payment of their salary from the State Exchequer.

¶23

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondent viz. Respondent no. 3. It is contended in the counter affidavit that the writ petition (PIL) No. 50052 of 2015 (Hansraj Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) an order was passed by this Court on 8.9.2015 on the basis of which an enquiry was conducted by a three members committee constituted by the District Magistrate, Ballia. The aforesaid committee submitted its report on 30.7.2017. In the inquiry report it was found that the institution in question is located on Gata No. 240 having area 0.121 hectare while in the documents/papers produced by the manager at the time of recognition

¶24

¶25

the institution in question it was shown to be established at Gata Nos. 2374/1.2, 2378/2-203298, 3299, total four Gatas having total area of 0.23 acre of land in the name and ownership of the petitioner.

¶26

Pursuant to the enquiry report dated 30^th July, 2017 explanation was called for from the institution but no response was received and as such the matter was referred to before the Regional Committee in accordance with the Government Order dated 30^th March, 2017. The Regional Committee directed for the withdrawal of the recognition of the institution in question and thereafter the order dated 3.4.2017 was passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia.

¶27

After aforesaid order dated 3.4.2017 which was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 19644 of 2017 on 28.2.2018, a representation was made by the petitioners which was forwarded by the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia to the Secretary U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad on 17^th May, 2018 for necessary instructions. In this regard letter dated 21.8.2018 was also brought on record by which the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia again recommended the matter pertaining to payment of salary to the petitioners before the Additional Director (Basic Education) Education Directorate, Allahabad. In the said letter after noticing various facts including the interim order granted by this Court in the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management dated 28.2.2018, asked for necessary instructions for payment of salary to the teachers who are working in the institution in question.

¶28

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

It appears from perusal of the record that the petitioners were duly appointed after necessary approval was granted in their favour by the concerned competent authority viz District Basic Education Officer, Ballia. After the institution came into grant in aid list

¶30

¶31

petitioners no. 1,2,3, 6 and 7 started getting their salary from the State Exchequer w.e.f. December, 2006. Since petitioners no. 4 and 5 were appointed subsequently after the institution came into grant in aid list, they started getting their salary from the date of their initial appointment i.e. in the year 2015. The order of approval granted by the District Basic Education Officer in favour of the petitioners are continuing even today, apart from the same no adverse order whatsoever has been passed till day against the petitioners by any authority for stopping their salary. The salary of the petitioners were stopped only on the ground that the recognition of the institution in question has been cancelled by the authorities.

¶32

After the order by which recognition of the institution in question was cancelled was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 19644 of 2017 vide order dated 28.02.2018 a letter has already written by the District Basic Education Officer-respondent no.3 to the Additional Director (Basic Education) Education Directorate, Allahabad on 21.8.2018, but on the aforesaid letter till date no orders have been passed by the aforesaid authority i.e. Additional Director of Education (Basic Education Directorate) Allahabad.

¶33

In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Additional Director (Basic Education) Education Directorate, Allahabad to pass appropriate order regarding payment of salary to the petitioners expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date the aforesaid order is communicated. Needless to say that while passing the order, as directed above, the Additional Director (Basic Education) shall consider the fact that the order of cancellation of recognition is stayed by this Hon'ble Court and the petitioners are continuously teaching in the institution.

¶34

Order Date :- 26.4.2019 M.A.Ansari

Smt. Pushpa Devi and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpa Devi and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anshu Rani Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Chotey Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajendra Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Prahalad Narayan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others