Allowed

Sant Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2022WRIA/2169/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Writ Petition seeking salary arrears. It quashed the respondent's order which denied claims based merely on suspicion that a post-creation order was forged, characterized as an unauthorized review. The Court directed payment of arrears with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Director of Basic Education directed to pay arrears of salary with 6% interest.

Sant Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2169 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sant Kumar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh,Anil Bhusan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 15.9.2009 passed by Director of Education (Basic), U.P., respondent No.2 only in respect of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner from month to month alongwith arrears since 01.12.1998, when the institution came under the grant-in-aid list of the State Government.

¶6

The brief facts of the petition are that Dr. Lohia Senior Basic Vidhyalaya Bairiya, Ballia, was initially Junior High School and was duly recognized by the Deputy Director of Education 5th Region Vanarasi on 23.9.1983. On 8.3.1984 formal approval was granted for the posts of one Head Master, six Assistant Teachers, one Clerk and three Class IV employees by the Deputy Direction of Education. Subsequently, by the order dated 04.3.1987 sanctioned posts were increased, which included one Head Master, ten Assistant Teachers, one Clerk and three Class IV employees. On 22.8.1991 the Committee of Management of the institution proceeded with the appointments and the petitioner was selected and recommended for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. After due approval of his appointment by the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, respondent No.3, the petitioner was

¶7

issued appointment letter dated 23.8.1991 by the Manager of the institution and he started working from that date in the institution. In December 1998, the institution was taken under grant-in-aid list of the State Government, but the Manager of the institution only showed 11 employees in his managerial return and the Assistant Deputy Director of Basic, Azamgarh, accorded approval to the payment of salary to nine employees as per the Payment of Salary Act 1978. On 15.7.2004, the Basic Education Officer, Ballia, submitted a report before the Regional Deputy Director Education (Basic), Azamgarh, with regard to the appointment/approval to payment of salary in favour of the remaining Assistant Teachers of the institution, but no action was taken. The management approached this Court by way of writ petition praying for direction for payment of salary of the remaining teaching staff of the institution. The writ petition was disposed of directing the Director of Basic Education to take appropriate decision in this regard, but he declined to pass any order in favour of the petitioner, but accorded the approval in favour of two other Assistant Teachers by the order dated 28.7.2005.

¶8

Challenging the aforesaid order dated 28.7.2005, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 35782 of 2006, which was again disposed of with the direction to the Director of Basic Education to decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary. By the impugned order dated 15.9.2009 passed by the Director of Basic Education, Lucknow, the claim of the petitioner turned down. It has been stated that the appointments in the aid non government Junior High School are made as per the provisions of The U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978. There is provision in the Act that the post of Teacher and other employees cannot be created without the permission of Director and the posts are created only after the

¶9

2 of 5

¶10

orders of the competent authority. The payment of salary regarding the posts, which are not created as per the government order aforesaid cannot be directed. After inclusion of the school in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government, the original record of the appointment of the teaching/non-teaching staff of the institution shown in the managerial return was not found and the verification of working of old employee was made from the school register and the approval was accorded to one Head Master, three Assistant Teachers, one Clerk and three Class IV employees. The orders of additional posts created mentioned in the managerial return were not found to be genuine and matter was referred to the Director of Basic Education in pursuance of the order dated passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7352 of 2005 filed by the Committee of Management. The approval was granted to the payment of salary of two more Assistant Teachers by the order dated 28.7.2005. The above writ petition No.35782 of 2006 filed by the petitioner was decided by this Court on 21.4.2009 and selection of these posts were found to be fraudulent and therefore, his claim was declined.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit, wherein it has been stated that similarly situated two Assistant Teachers like the petitioner were granted approval for payment of salary by the Regional Deputy Director (Basic) Azamgarh, by the order dated 28.7.2005 while the petitioner has been denied the same. The finding that the order of sanction of posts dated 04.3.1987 is suspicious and forged amounts to review of the order dated 04.3.1987. It has further been stated that in paragraph No. 8 of the counter affidavit it has been mentioned by the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the then Basic Education Officer alongwith the approval of a Clerk in the order dated 22.8.1991 and the Clerk is getting salary, but the petitioner is being denied the same.

¶12

3 of 5

¶13

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that in the order dated 28.7.2005 passed by the Director of Basic Education U.P., Lucknow passed in pursuance of the order dated 16.2.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 7352 of 2005 finding has been recorded that the Manager alongwith his letter dated 26.4.2005 has produced the post creation order dated 4.3.1987 in original and the original receipt of the office of District Basic Education Officer, which cannot be said to be forged in the absence of any other record. In the impugned order dated 15.9.2009 the Director of Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow has recorded the findings that the same post creation order dated 04.3.1987 bears forged signatures of the Divisional Deputy Director of Basic Education, Varansi as perceived from eyes. He has expressed his doubt about the genuineness of the post creation order dated 4.3.1987 and has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner on the same basis. He has also reviewed the order dated 28.7.2005 whereby direction for payment of salary two Assistant Teachers, namely, Narendra Nath Kunwar and Tribhuwan Nayaran Singh was ordered by the earlier incumbent of his office.

¶14

The impugned order dated 15.9.2009 is passed only on the suspicion that the post creation order dated 4.3.1987 of Deputy Director of Basic Education, Varanasi, was forged document. There was no evidence of the same except the suspicion of the Director of Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow. By the same order he has set aside the order dated 28.7.2005, wherein the clear finding was recorded by the Director of Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow that the original post creation order dated 4.3.1987 alongwith the receipt of the server from the office of District Basic Education Officer was produced before him.

¶15

4 of 5

¶16

Clearly, the order impugned amounts to review of the order dated 4.3.1987 and 28.7.2005 passed by earlier incumbents of the office of Director of Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow and in the absence of statutory provision cannot be sustained. They are hereby quashed.

¶17

The Director of Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow, respondent No.2 is directed to make payment of arrears of salary of the petitioner from 01.02.1998, i.e., date from which the institution was taken under grain-in-aid list of the State Government, to the date of actual payment within three months from today. In case the amount is not paid within three months, petitioner shall entitled to 6% interest on the aforesaid amount. However, the State government shall be free to recover the amount of interest from the salary of the public servant/servants found at fault in causing delay in the payment of amount directed to be paid to the petitioner by this Court.

¶18

The writ petition is allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.4.2022 Ruchi

¶20

5 of 5

¶21

Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.04.27 15:46:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sant Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nepal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Sumitra Devi and 2 Others Vs M/S S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Niharika Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mihi Lal Since Dead and Now Rep.by. Bhikam Singh Vs Shyam Lal Since Dead and Now Rep. by.Shri Chhattarmal and Oth.

Rakhi Kaushik Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bharat Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others