Allowed

Uma Kant v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2019WRIA/17217/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired Assistant Teacher, challenged an order refusing unpaid salary for a specific period. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the order based on a prior judgment that set aside the Government Order relied upon to deny the salary.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.06.2019 set aside; Respondent directed to pay petitioner's salary from 01.07.2015 to 31.10.2015 within three months.

Uma Kant Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17217 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Uma Kant Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Sahu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shravan Kumar Panday

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 and Sri Shravan Kumar Panday, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶6

The petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dodapur, Vikas Khand-Vidhuna, District Auraiya. The date of retirement of the petitioner was 05.04.2015, but by virtue of Government Order dated 19.10.2015, the petitioner was entitled to continue till the end of session 31.03.2016. The petitioner, thereafter, was allowed to rejoin the institution on 01.11.2016.

¶7

Petitioner was superannuated on 31.03.2016. The petitioner was paid salary from 01.11.2015 to 31.03.2016. However, salary for the period of 01.07.2015 to 31.10.2015 has not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ A No.3397 of 2019 wherein this Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent no.3-District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya who was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner.

¶8

Pursuant to the judgement of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, respondent no.3 decided the representation of the petitioner by order dated 24.06.2019 refusing the payment of salary to the petitioner from 01.07.2015 to 31.10.2015 on the ground of no work no pay in the light of the Government Order dated 02.05.2017. However, respondent no.3 by the said order granted pension to the petitioner for the aforesaid period. The said order is impugned in the writ petition.

¶9

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Government Order dated 02.05.2017 on which reliance has been placed by respondent no.3 has been quashed by this Court in Writ A No.33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) decided on 19.08.2017, and this Court in the said judgement further directed the respondents to pay the salary to the teachers from 30 June, 2015 till the date of their joining.

¶10

Thus, the submission is that the order impugned is in the teeth of judgement of this Court in the case of Angad Yadav (supra) and as such is not sustainable in law.

¶11

Since it is evident from the order impugned in the writ petition that only ground on which payment of salary has been denied to the petitioner is the Government Order dated 02.05.2017.

¶12

This Court, in the facts of the present case and in the interest of justice, does not deem it fit to invite counter affidavit and keep the writ petition pending as the order impugned is based upon a Government Order which has already been set aside by this Court.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the legal preposition submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the order impugned in the facts of the present case is just and proper but could not point out anything from the impugned order that the salary to the petitioner has been denied for any reason other than the Government Order dated 02.05.2017.

¶14

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned is not sustainable for the reason that the Government Order dated 02.05.2017 on which reliance has been placed by respondent no.3 for refusing the payment of salary to the petitioner from 01.07.2015 to 31.10.2015 has been set aside by this Court in the case of Angad Yadav (supra) . Therefore, it is manifest from the record that the order impugned has been passed without application of mind and based on incorrect facts on record.

¶15

Thus, for the reasons given above, the impugned order dated 24.06.2019 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed . Respondent no.3-District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya is directed to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period of 01.07.2015 to 31.10.2015 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Sattyarth

Uma Kant v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Kant 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Asha S. Nelson Vs State of U.P. and Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mrs. U.K. Sharma Vs Union of India and Others

Smt. Ananya Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M Janata Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Sunita Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others