Disposed

Smt. Snehlata Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2020WRIA/9070/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher under the Triple Language Scheme, approached the High Court seeking release of outstanding salary for the period 2006-10. The Court addressed the conflicting stance of respondents regarding post-polarisation liability while the Triple Language Scheme was still operational. The matter was not adjudicated on merits but rather remitted for reconsideration by the autho

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to request second respondent to reconsider claim for salary grant for 2006-2010 within three months.

Smt. Snehlata Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9070 of 2012

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Snehlata Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.A. Usmani

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

Although the third respondent is duly represented, none has appeared on his behalf even when the matter is taken in the revised call.

¶7

This petition has been preferred principally seeking the following reliefs;-

¶8

"Issue a writ order or direction or pass an order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to forthwith release the salary of the petitioner for the past period/years 2006-07, 200708, 2008-09, 2009-10 i.e. w.e.f. 21.3.2006 to 07.10.2010 for the work done by her on the post of Assistant Teacher under Triple Language Scheme of the State Government."

¶9

The petitioner claims to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) under the then prevalent Triple Language Scheme. It is asserted that although the petitioner continually worked and discharged duties right from 21 March 2006 to 07 October 2010, she has not been paid emoluments for the aforesaid period. The attention of the Court is also drawn to the communication of 27 January 2009 issued by the Basic Education Officer and addressed to the Director Education (Basic) requesting for release of funds to enable him to disburse salaries. On 31 December 2010 however the Director apprised the

¶10

petitioner that in light of a subsequent policy decision taken on 07 October 2010, the policy of reimbursement of salaries payable to teachers under the Triple Language Scheme had been withdrawn and that consequently such teachers would have to lay claims for their salaries upon the concerned Committee of Management. Learned counsel however contends that the claim for salary is for a period prior to 07 October 2010 till which time the liability of the State-respondents to disburse salaries had continued. The third respondent in the counter affidavit filed has taken the position that since the institution in which the petitioner was employed was not included in the grant-inaid list, her claim for salary would have to be laid upon the concerned Management alone. The Court finds itself unable to countenance this position since admittedly the liability towards salary of teachers appointed under the Triple Language Scheme was to be borne by the State Government. That facility was withdrawn only pursuant to the policy decision taken on 07 October 2010. The counter affidavit fails to explain how the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 stand reneged of the obligation to deal with the claim of salary for teachers employed under the Triple Language Scheme prior to 07 October 201.

¶11

In view thereof, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for grant of salary for the period mentioned above in accordance with law and bearing in mind the observations entered hereinabove.

¶12

The consideration shall be concluded with expedition and

¶13

a final decision communicated to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.2.2020 faraz

Smt. Snehlata Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Snehlata Singh v. State of U.P. and 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

Arjun Tiwari and Another Vs the Chairman and Managing Director Bank of India and 3 Others

Ramendra Pratap Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kumari Prachi Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Naveen Chandra Badal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Sharma Sub-Inspector Vs State of U.P. and Others

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.Thru Secy and Ors.