Dismissed

Director of Education Basic U.P. Lucknow and Others v. Vishwanath Mishra and Another

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2022/196/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal regarding State liability for salary and condonation of delay. Court allowed delay condonation. Held State cannot pay salary if name not in Management Return as of 2006/2014, leaving entitlement to be adjudicated separately. Disposed of appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed. Special Appeal dismissed with direction to approach competent authority for salary adjudication.

Director of Education Basic U.P. Lucknow… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 196 of 2022

¶2

Appellant :- Director Of Education Basic U.P. Lucknow And Others Respondent :- Vishwanath Mishra And Another Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Sudhanshu Chauhan, Ajay Kumar

¶3

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-appellants, Shri Sudhanshu Singh Chauhan, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1-petitioner and Shri Avinash Mishra, learned counsel representing the respondent no.2-Committee of Management of the Institution.

¶5

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances and going through the application seeking condonation of delay and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the delay has sufÏciently been explained in instituting the Special Appeal.

¶6

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay (C.M. Application No.01 of 2022) is allowed and the delay in moving the Special Appeal is hereby condoned.

¶7

The respondent no.1- petitioner instituted Writ Petition No.5890 (S/S) of 2004 with a prayer to command the Committee of Management of Jan Jagran Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sariyawan, District Ayodhya (Faizabad), to pay him salary on the post of Head Master as it was pleaded by him that his appointment was made in the Institution as Head master in the year 1980 which was allegedly approved by the District Basic Education OfÏcer in the year 1988. During the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition No.5890 (S/S) of 2004, the respondent no.1-petitioner's services were terminated which led him to institute the

¶8

proceedings of Writ Petition No.4307 (S/S) of 2005. Both the petitions were clubbed together by the learned Single Judge and have been decided by means of judgment and order dated 03.12.2019, whereby the termination order has been found to be unlawful and has accordingly been set aside and it has been held further by the learned Single Judge that the respondent no.1-petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

¶9

Submission of the learned Additional Advocate General in this case is that the Institution was taken on grant-in-aid list on 02.12.2006, and thereafter on completion of the requisite formalities and also on the basis of Management Return filed by the Committee of Management, permission to pay salary to the teaching and nonteaching staff was granted by the State authorities by means of an order dated 28.11.2014.

¶10

It has been argued that since neither at the time the institution was brought in grant-in-aid list i.e. on 02.12.2006, nor at the time when the permission was accorded by the State Government for payment of salary to the teaching and nonteaching staff i.e. on 28.11.2014, the respondent no.1-petitioner was working in the Institution as such as a consequence of judgment and order dated 03.12.2019, the State exchequer cannot be saddled with the responsibility for making payment of salary, if any, to him.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1-petitioner has submitted that non-inclusion of the name of the respondent no.1petitioner in the Management Return filed by the institution when the Institution was brought on grant-in-aid list and further non-inclusion of his name in the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the State Government for payment of salary from State exchequer is only on account of the fact that petitioner's services were illegally terminated and since the said termination order has now been set aside by this Court by means of the judgment and order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, as such, he is entitled to be included in the list of the eligible teachers who are to be paid salary from the State exchequer. In this view,

¶12

the submission is that this Special appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Shri Avinash Mishra, learned counsel representing the respondent no.2-the Committee of Management has submitted that it is not the liability of the Committee of Management to make payment of salary.

¶14

So far as the submission made by the learned counsel representing the respondent no.1petitioner that he is entitled to be paid salary from the State exchequer is concerned, in our considered opinion, unless and until his name is duly included in the Management Return, which was filed when the Institution was brought on grant-in-aid list i.e. on 02.12.2006 and further unless his name is approved by the State Government for payment of salary from the State exchequer, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.12.2019 which is under challenge before us in this special appeal, the State cannot be saddled with the liability for making payment to him.

¶15

However, these observations being made by us will not mean any finding on the entitlement of the respondent no.1-petitioner to be paid salary from the State exchequer which issue is yet to be decided/adjudicated by any competent authority or forum or Court.

¶16

Accordingly, this Special Appeal is finally disposed of with the observations that in terms of the judgment and order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, the State cannot be saddled with the responsibility of making payment of salary to the respondent no.1petitioner unless such liability is adjudicated by any competent Forum, Authority or Court.

¶17

We further observe that it will, thus, be open to the respondent no.1- petitioner to get his rights adjudicated by approaching the appropriate Authority/ Forum/ Court for being paid salary from the State exchequer, once the order terminating his services has been set aside by means of judgment and order dated 03.12.2019 passed by

¶18

learned Single Judge.

¶19

There will be no order as to costs.

¶20

Order Date :- 29.9.2022 PAL

¶21

Digitally signed by NARESH PAL Date: 2022.09.30 09:59:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Director of Education Basic U.P. Lucknow and Others v. Vishwanath Mishra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Director of Education Basic U.P. Lucknow and Others v. Vishwanath Mishra and Another

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

Amaullah Khan in Re W.P NO.4057 S/S of 2004 Vs State of U.P.through Prin Secy Secondary Eduation

Dental Council of India Inre W.P.NO.3405MS2005 Vs Subharati Dental College through Principal and 16 Others

Shiv Nath Dwivedi and Another Vs U.P.Power Corporation Ltd.through Managing Director and Anor

Jagdish Sharma Vs Smt. Sandhya Sharma and Anr.

Ashutosh Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Ors.

Gajanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Devolopment Lko. and 6 Others