Disposed

Vijay Laxmi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2019WRIA/24371/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Basic Education Officer to revisit the grievance of retired teachers denied salary due to session extension benefits. The court quashed an order ignoring a prior judgment and directed a fresh decision in accordance with that precedent.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.12.2017 is quashed. The District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur is directed to revisit the matter and pass an appropriate order within two months following a fresh representation

Vijay Laxmi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24371 of 2016 Petitioner :- Vijay Laxmi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar,P.K. Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. V. B. Singh, learned counsel, has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.3, 4 and 5.

¶5

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer :-

¶6

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make the payment of pay and allowances to the Petitioner from 1st July, 2015 to December 2015 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date of actual amount to the date of actual payment and thereafter pensionary benefit may be settled and paid to the petitioner."

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is identical as in Writ A No.33360 of 2017, (Angad Yadav and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 19.8.2017. A copy of the said judgement was placed before the Court, the same is taken on record. Following the said judgement another order was passed by this Court in Writ A No.25200 of 2018, Naval Kishore Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others , decided on 29.11.2018. The order passed in Writ A No.25200 of 2018 is reproduced below:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶9

The petitioners before this Court are retired teachers of the Institutions namely Junior/ Senior Basic Schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad.

¶10

The grievance of the petitioners is that by the order impugned dated 28.12.2017 they have been denied payment of salary for the period they have not worked on an extension of service due to session benefit. The submission is that the petitioners were illegally deprived of the extension of service due to retirement in mid of session only on account of alteration in the session by the Government Order. However, later on correction being made, they were extended benefit for the remaining period of extended service due to session benefit.

¶11

The controversy whether the petitioners would be entitled for payment of salary or not for the period they did not worked admittedly, though earlier before this Court Writ - A No. 33360 of 2017, Angad Yadav and others v.

¶12

State of U.P. and others decided on 19.08.2017 which though has been appealed against but has attained finality in so far as the controversy is concerned and this Court has already directed in that case for payment of salary for the period, the petitioners were wholly illegally denied extension.

¶13

From the perusal of order impugned, this Court finds that the District Basic Education Officer (hereinafter to be referred as 'DBEO'), Aligarh has not considered the above judgment and the ratio laid down therein with the ultimate conclusion drawn by this Court while passing the order impugned.

¶14

Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel representing the concerned respondents admit that the judgment has not been taken into account though it was passed on 19.08.2017 itself.

¶15

In view of the above, therefore, the findings returned in the order impugned by the concerned authority cannot be sustained in law and so the order dated 28.12.2017 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The DBEO, Aigarh, the 5th respondent is hereby directed to revisit the matter in the light of judgment in the case of Angad Yadav (supra) and take a decision afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶16

Writ petition stands disposed of."

¶17

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to move a fresh representation addressed to the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur along-with certified copy of the order passed in the present case as well as photo-copy of the judgement rendered in Writ A No.33360 of 2017 within a period of two weeks from today. The District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and also in the light of the judgement delivered by this Court in the case of Angad Yadav (supra) within further period of two months.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.4.2019 Pramod Tripathi

Vijay Laxmi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Laxmi 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashutosh Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reshma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neelam Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Buddhsen Vs State of U P and 4 Others

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

Ziyaula Haque Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others