Disposed

Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta and 14 Others v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2022WRIA/3971/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached the High Court for payment of salary under Government Orders regarding one-time financial assistance to NAAC 'A' accredited private colleges. The Court directed the Respondent to consider the claim within three months without raising preliminary objections regarding the claim form's proforma, allowing for a defect notice if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 1 to consider the claim for one-time financial assistance within three months without raising preliminary objections or issuing a defect notice if required.

Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta and 14 Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3971 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta And 14 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Indresh Dubey,Vivek Kumar Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai learned counsel for the University, Sri Indresh Dubey learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Sri Neeraj Pandey learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Petitioners (15 in numbers) have approached this Court for a direction upon respondent No2-Director Higher Education to pay full salary to the petitioners in terms of the Government Order dated 05.2.2014 as amended by the Government Order dated 29.3.2016.

¶7

In short, it is the case of the petitioners, they were appointed by the respondent Agra College, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the 'College'), under Self Finance Scheme for teaching different classes in different courses run by that College. On 16.1.2014 a Cabinet decision was taken by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, amongst others, providing for one time financial assistance to non Government aided Degree/PG colleges in the State of U.P. who may have earned NAAC 'A' ranking/accredition. The said Cabinet decision fructified into Government Order dated 05.2.2014 providing for one time financial assistance being salary payable to the teachers at such private Degree/PG colleges that may have earned NAAC 'A' accredition.

¶8

It is the further case of the petitioners, as is also not disputed by

¶9

the State respondents that for the academic session 2016-17 and 2017-18, on the strength of NAAC 'A' accredition granted to the college, that one time financial assistance was granted to the College by the State authorities in those years. In the meantime, the above Government Order was amended by the Government Order dated 29.3.2016. The one time financial assistance was reduced to 80% of the total salary payable to teachers teaching in Self Finance Scheme. Petitioners do not dispute the same.

¶10

The precise grievance of the petitioners is, after the academic session 2017-18, no grant has been released to the College in terms of the Government Orders dated 05.2.2014 and 29.3.2016. Consequently, they have not been paid their due salary for the academic session 2018-19. They rely on the circumstance that the Government Orders have yet not been withdrawn. The College is stated to have submitted to the Director, Higher Education on 27.6.2018 the claim for release of the due grant. However, no response has been received thereto. Last, reliance has been placed on the communication dated 20.1.2021 issued by the Director, Higher Education to the Under Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh for funds. Thus, it has been submitted, the real reason to not release the funds to the College is not any deficiency in the information submitted by the said College but lack of funds.

¶11

Learned counsel for the College has supported the case set up by the petitioners.

¶12

Learned counsel for the University states that the University has no role to play in the claim being made.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel would contend, the information furnished by the petitioner to claim grant was not in proper proforma. Full details, as required, were not disclosed. Therefore, the claim has remained pending. On a query whether

¶14

the scheme introduced by the Government Order dated 05.2.2014 as amended by the Government Order dated 29.3.2016 has been withdrawn, the response of the learned Standing Counsel is in the negative. It has also been submitted that the claim of grant would remain subject to the College having retained NAAC 'A' accredition during the academic session 2018-19. In that regard it has been submitted that the College itself had claimed NAAC 'A' accredition up to 09.12.2019.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, insofar as the Government Order dated 05.2.2014 as amended by the Government Order dated 29.3.2016 has not been shown to stand in conflict with any higher law, whether statutory or delegated and insofar as those Government Orders have not been withdrawn till date, the claim made by the petitioners does merit consideration.

¶16

As to whether the College is entitled to claim grant and consequentially whether the petitioners are entitled to receive the benefit of such grant are matters to be considered by the respondent No. 1. In that regard, if the stand taken in the counter affidavit is correct that the information furnished by the College was not complete or on the prescribed proforma, that fact should have been made known to the College by the said respondent or respondent No.1. Here, the counter affidavit filed by the State respondent is clearly silent. Therefore, it has to be accepted that upon receipt of the claim made by the College on 27.6.2018, no action was taken by the respondents.

¶17

As to NAAC 'A' accredition, at present prima facie it does appear that such accredition existed in favour of the College till 09.12.2019 which would cover the period of claim being academic session 2018-19. However, no final conclusion is

¶18

being recorded in that regard as that may remain a matter to be enquired into by the respondent No.1.

¶19

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction, respondent No. 1 shall proceed to consider the claim of the petitioners for release of one-time financial assistance/grant to the Agra College, Agra for academic session 2018-19 in terms of the Government Order dated 05.2.2014, as amended by the Government Order dated 29.3.2016 within a period of three months from today. In doing that, no preliminary objection may be raised by the said respondents to non-suit that College on the reasoning that the claim dated 27.6.2019 was not on the prescribed proforma. If however, there exists any deficiency in the information furnished by the College, that may be required to be corrected by issuance of appropriate notice within three weeks from today. Subject to receipt of such notice, the said College may furnish appropriate information and rectify the defect, if any within a further period of one week therefrom. Thereafter the issue of grant of one time financial assistance/grant to the College may be considered and dealt with in accordance with law. Any amount found due and payable to the College may be paid out within a period of one month therefrom.

¶20

Order Date :- 9.12.2022 Faraz

¶21

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.12.12 17:39:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta and 14 Others v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta and 14 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupak kumar jain Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and 3 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs Directorate of School Education and 4 Others

Gaurav Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anju and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Priyanka Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Manorma Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others