Disposed

Danish Kamal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 May 2023WRIA/3120/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, Assistant Teachers at a Madarsa, approached the court for salary arrears. The court held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonged pendency and directed the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order in favour of the petitioners to pass appropriate order on representation within three months.

Danish Kamal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:112786

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3120 of 2023 Petitioner :- Danish Kamal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh,Ashwani Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jamil Ahamad Azmi,Mariyam Hashmi,Pranav Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jamil Ahamad Azmi, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 5 and Shri Pranav Mishra, learned counsel, representing the respondent no. 2. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4.

¶6

The petitioners, who claim to be appointed as Assistant Techers in Madarsa Alzameatul Mahmudiya, Balua, Kurthizafarpur, Mau, have approached this Court, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities, particularly, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to sanction the salary in favour of the petitioners, regularly month to month, as also pay arrears of salary for the month of April 2022. A further prayer to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners, as made in the representation, regarding payment of salary is also being made.

¶7

Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset submits that the petitioners have preferred a representation on 29.09.2022, addressed to the Director Minority Welfare, U.P. Lucknow, respondent no. 3, and the purpose of filing this writ petition would be served if directions are issued to the respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate orders on the pending representation of the petitioner.

¶8

Shri Jamil Ahamad Azmi, learned counsel, representing the respondents submits that the representation of the petitioner has been addressed to the Director Minority Welfare U.P. Lucknow and the same shall be decided in accordance with law. He further submits that the Madarsa in question has since been closed down, however, the said facts has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

Be that as it may.

¶10

From the prayer made in the writ petition it is borne out that the petitioners are claiming the release of salary for the period when the Madarsa in question was very much functioning therefore, they are entitled for the payment of salary if there is no other impediment.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on instructions, which are taken on record, submits

¶12

that the Madarsa in question which was functioning in a rented property has since been closed down and the lease pertaining to the rent has also expired.

¶13

Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers, pursuant to scheme of 'Adhunikikaran' as notified by the Central Government for the purpose of upliftment of the Madarsas. The said scheme is very much functioning as on date and the petitioners are also liable to be rehabilitated in other Madarsas since the Madarsa in question, according to the respondents, has been closed down. This aspect of the matter can also be considered by the respondent no. 3, while considering the representation of the petitioners for release of salary.

¶14

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the same is accordingly, disposed of requiring the respondent no. 3, Director, Minority Welfare U.P. Lucknow, seized with the representation of the petitioners dated 29.09.2022, to pass appropriate orders thereon, after considering all aspects of the matter, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of service of a certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶15

Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it shall be open for the respondent No. 3, Director, Minority Welfare U.P. Lucknow to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.5.2023 Deepak/

¶17

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

Danish Kamal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Danish Kamal and 2 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanand Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gaurav Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Satish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Padma Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shailendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Khem Chandra (Assistant Teacher) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others