Partly allowed

Tula Ram Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2023/1096/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge upheld a challenge to orders disallowing service claims. The High Court quashed the orders for denying the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and ignoring an inquiry report issuing one to the subordinate officer with salary continuity until the fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 06/07/2022 and 22/07/2021 quashed and set aside. Petitioner entitled to salary pending fresh order.

Tula Ram Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1096 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Tula Ram Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06/07.04.2022 as well as the order dated 22.07.2021.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is working in the institution since 1990, which according to the petitioner is the correct date of appointment. The order impugned records that the petitioner was working elsewhere for some time.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that this issue was got inquired through a three member committee which gave a categorical report in favour of the petitioner, however, while passing the impugned orders, neither the said report was considered nor the petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing.

¶9

From perusal of the orders, prima-facie, it is apparent that there is no consideration of the inquiry report annexed with the writ petition as Annexure - 8. There also does not appear to be any consideration of the other orders except the complaint.

¶10

Considering the orders, which are impugned, prima-facie it does not accord any hearing to the petitioner prior to passing of the said order; there is no consideration of the inquiry report in the orders impugned.

¶11

As the impugned orders have severe consequences and since both the orders do not record any hearing being granted to the petitioner, the impugned orders dated 06/07.04.2022 and 22.07.2021 are set aside.

¶12

The matter is remanded back to the DIOS, Gonda/respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶13

While giving a hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner would be entitled to raise all the grounds, including the ground of jurisdiction as contained in Rule 43 of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education (Appointment and Conditions

¶14

of Service of Heads of Institutions, Teachers and Other Employees of the Institution) Rules, 2009.

¶15

While passing the fresh order, the DIOS shall consider the inquiry report as contained in Annexure - 12 of the writ petition.

¶16

Till the fresh order is passed, the petitioner will be entitled to the salary to which he is entitled.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed off in above terms.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.2.2023 nishant

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tula Ram Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tula Ram Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 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

Committee of Management P.D.Pandey Inter College Faizabad Vs State of U.P.through Prin. Secy. Secondary Education U.P.

Dinesh Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 6 Others

Vidya Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Yash Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Basic Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Kusum Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Sushila Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others