Allowed

Virendra Prasad Tripathi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2022WRIA/7175/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed an order cancelling the regularization of petitioners' services. The Court held the cancelling order was passed without jurisdiction by a wrong committee and violated natural justice principles due to lack of a show-cause notice. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; regularization restored; petitioner's arrears directed to be paid forthwith; post-retiral dues including pension directed to be calculated and paid within eight weeks.

Virendra Prasad Tripathi and 3 Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7175 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Virendra Prasad Tripathi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Mohan Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Raj Mohan Yadav, learned counsel representing respondent no.6.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by Joint Director of Education Basti Region, Basti Nagar. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to grant pension and other post retiral dues to the petitioners.

¶7

Facts pleaded in the petition are that petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in C.T. Grade on adhoc basis and the District Inspector of Schools vide orders dated 05.12.1981 and 29.05.1982 accorded approval to the appointments of the petitioners for period of six months by the order dated 15.05.1983. The Committee of Management held that their payments of salary would made in C.T. Grade for six months. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order passed by the Committee of Management before this Court vide Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9463 of 1983 and the order dated 15.03.1983 was stayed by this Court. In the same writ petition the order of payment of salary of the petitioners was passed on 14.12.1983. Thereafter, C.T. Grade was declared as dying cadre in the year 1989 and teachers who had worked for more than 10 years in C.T. Grade

¶8

were held entitled to L.T. Grade. Accordingly, petitioners were granted L.T. Grade by the order dated 29.04.1992 by the District Inspector of Schools, Siddarth Nagar. Subsequently, petitioners were also granted selection grade of L.T. Grade by the order dated 14.02.2002 of District Inspector of Schools, Siddharth Nagar. The Writ-A No.9643 of 1983 was dismissed as infructuous on the ground that since regularly selected candidate from Commission has joined post and selection grade has been granted to the petitioners by the District Inspector of Schools on 29.04.1992, the petition has become infructuous and it was accordingly dismissed. Petitioners being fully qualified continued to work as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade and were granted permanent pay-scale after completing 12 years of service and there services were also regularised by the Regional Selection Committee by its order dated 28.12.2018.

¶9

The District Inspector of Schools, Siddharth Nagar by the order dated 28.02.2019 directed that the salary of the petitioners be stopped since their Writ A No.9643 of 1983 has been dismissed by the order of High Court dated 17.02.2004.

¶10

Petitioners filed Writ -A No.5009 of 2019 praying for quashing of the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Siddharth Nagar, which was disposed of by order dated 11.04.2019 directing that the petitioner shall be paid their salary and it shall be open for the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the Joint Director of Education revoking their regularization.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has filed counter

¶12

affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 5 and has submitted that the petitioners were appointed in the institution in the year 1981 in terms of the provision of Removal of Difficulty Order for limited period for adhoc basis and after expiry of academic session their services came to end. They worked on the basis of order dated 14.12.1993 passed in Writ-A No.9643 of 1993, which was dismissed as infructuous on 17.04.2004. Thereafter District Inspector of Schools forwarded the papers of the petitioners and they were regularised in service. When the correct facts came to the knowledge of the Joint Director of Education, Basti their orders of regularization in services were recalled. He had submitted that petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

After hearing the rival contention this Court finds that the services of the petitioners had been regularized u/s 33B (2) (a) of U.P. Act no.5 of 1982 by the regional selection committee comprising of (1) Regional Deputy Director of Education of that region who was chairman, (2) on officer under group A (specified as such by State Government from time to time) (3) Regional Inspectress Girls Schools of that region provided that the Inspector of the district shall be co-opeted as member while considering the cases for regularization of that district. In view of the aforesaid, the regional selection committee as constituted u/s 33B (2)(a) of U.P. Act no.5 of 1982 was empowered to make regularization of services of the petitioners. It is apparent from the order dated 20.12.2018, whereby the services of the petitioners had been regularized, that regularization was done by the aforesaid regional selection committee. The impugned order dated

¶14

8.3.2019 has been passed by the regional level committee holding that it met on 23.1.2019 and decided to cancel the regularization of the petitioners.

¶15

In view of the Government Order dated 19.12.2000, the regional level committee shall be constituted under the chairmanship of the Joint Director of Education, the Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools of the concerned district shall be member of the regional level committee. The regional level committee is entirely different from the regional selection committee constituted u/s 33B (2) (a) of U.P. Act no. 5 of 1982. Therefore, the impugned order dated 8.3.2019 passed by the regional level committee cancelling the regularization of services of the petitioners, is totally without jurisdiction.

¶16

From a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 8.3.2019 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti cancelling the regularization of the petitioners it its apparent that the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti himself has passed the impugned order dated 8.3.2019. Even the regional level committee had never met on 23.1.2019 and the next date fixed was on 8.2.2019. In view of the information given by the District Inspector of Schools, Siddhartha Nagar, the petitioners made an application to the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti which was duly received in the office of the Joint Director of Education Basti Region, Basti.

¶17

After 8.2.2019, no date was fixed either by the Joint Director of Education Basti Region, Basti or the regional level committee to hear the matter on 6.3.2019 as mentioned in the impugned order dated 8.3.2019. The regional level committee met on 6.3.2019 and decided to cancel the regularization of the petitioners but neither the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti nor the regional level committee heard the matter on 6.3.2019 nor before passing the impugned order dated 8.3.2019, the Joint Director of Education Basti Region, Basti issued any show cause notices to the petitioners. In view of the fact as mentioned here in above, the impugned order dated 8.3.2019 passed by the Joint Director of Education Basti Region, Basti is violate of the principles of natural justice.

¶18

Before cancelling the regularization of the petitioners the regional level committee ought to have issued show cause notice to the petitioners for cancelling their regularization or the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti should have also afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing the impugned order dated 8.3.2019 cancelling the regularization of the petitioners in service but neither any show cause notice nor any kind of opportunity has been afforded to the petitioners by the regional level committee or the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti before passing the impugned order dated 8.3.2019. Thus, the impugned order dated 8.3.2019 passed by the Joint Director of Education Basti Region, Basti is not in accordance with law.

¶19

The Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti has passed the impugned order dated 8.3.2019 on the ground that the writ petition no. 9647 of 1983 had been dismissed on on merit while the aforesaid writ petition no. 9647 of 1983 had been dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 17.2.2004 as infructuous on the ground petitioners had been granted that L.T. Grade by the District Inspector of Schools by means of order dated 24.3.1992.

¶20

The regularization of the petitioners had already been made by the regional selection committee vide its order dated 20.12.2018 while the affidavit had been given by the petitioners on 26.12.2018. The aforesaid affidavits as required by the Joint Director of Education Basti Region, Basti have been filed by the petitioners without concealing the material facts since then Writ Petition No.9643 of 1983 was already dismissed on 17.02.2004. At the time of filing of the affidavit, no writ petition was pending before this Court.

¶21

In view of the above consideration, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Since the petitioner no.1 is still working and would retire in the year 2024 his arrears of salary is directed to be paid forthwith. Regarding petitioner nos.2,3 and 4 it is hereby directed their post retiral dues including pension shall be calculated and paid the them within eight weeks from today.

¶22

In case of delay in payment as directed hereinabove the petitioners would be entitled to

¶23

get 9 percent simple interest per annum on the amount due to paid to them from the date it fell due to the date of actual payment. The State Government would be free to recover the interest paid to the petitioners from the public servant/servants found responsible for the delay.

¶24

Petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 20.4.2022 SS

¶26

Digitally signed by SURENDAR SINGH NARANG Date: 2022.04.28 17:32:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virendra Prasad Tripathi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Prasad Tripathi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Dileep Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Deepak Singh Vs District Inspector of School and 2 Others

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandhya Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bobby Lowrence Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhagat Singh Parihar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others