Dismissed

State of U.P. and 3 Others v. Sahendra Prasad and Another

Allahabad HC26 May 2023SPLAD/221/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Special Appeal filed by the State against an order granting salary. The appeal was rejected as wholly misconceived due to excessive delay and because the validity of the impugned order could no longer be challenged after a subsequent order on merits was passed following the appellant's retirement.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is found misconceived and hence dismissed.

State of U.P. and 3 Others Vs Sahendra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117812-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 221 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Respondent :- Sahendra Prasad And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Mohan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Mata Pher

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

This is a wholly misconceived appeal seeking to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge issuing direction to the respondents to release withheld salary of the petitioner, while quashing the order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. It was directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service and be paid salary. However continuance of the writ petitioner shall be subject to final conclusion of the criminal investigation or appropriate inquiry, made by the University in which orders may be passed after affording opportunity to the writ petitioner.

¶7

We may note that after the decision in the writ petition, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2021. The order dated 27.03.2015, subject matter of challenge before the writ court was of withholding salary of the petitioner on the premise of an inquiry initiated into the matter of verification of the educational testimonials and qualification of the petitioner submitted at the time of appointment, which was made in the year 1977. The writ petition was filed in the year 2015 and has been decided in January, 2021.

¶8

There was no interim order in the writ petition. The inquiry, however, has not been concluded at the ends of the District Inspector of Schools and after the directions were issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2021, it seems that verification process was completed and an order dated 23.06.2021 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools in an inquiry purported to be under Section 16 (E)(10) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 . By order dated 23.06.2021, it was concluded that since the petitioner had obtained appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) on the basis of a degree

¶9

known as "Shiksha Alankar" granted by Rastriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, his initial appointment was void as the said degree has not been recognized by this Court in a Writ Petition No. 29888 of 2011 (Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P. & Others) decided on 19.07.2011, holding that the said degree is not a prescribed qualification for appointment of teachers in a recognized and aided intermediate college.

¶10

The fact remains that the cancellation of appointment of the petitioner holding that the initial appointment was void, had been made after about three months of his superannuation from service. Based on this order dated 23.06.2021, a review application has been filed by the appellant which has been dismissed on 04.11.2022.

¶11

This appeal is delayed by 752 days.

¶12

The explanation offered in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application is not to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶13

Even otherwise, based on an order passed after five months of disposal of the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2021, the validity of the original judgment and order under review cannot be challenged.

¶14

On both the above counts, the appeal is found misconceived and hence dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Rajesh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

State of U.P. and 3 Others v. Sahendra Prasad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. and 3 Others v. Sahendra Prasad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Lal Bahadur Shastri Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Chief Executive Officer, Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority Vs Ramesh Kumar Saini and Another

Sant Lal Agarwal Vs Union Of India and 3 Others

C/M Shri Mahant Radha Krishna Inter College and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Aqib Alias Prince Vs State of U P and 4 Others

C/M Shree Sevarthi Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others