Partly allowed

Mahipal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 May 2023WRIA/3784/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an order stopping honorarium payments to Shiksha Mitra employees. It held that penal action or stoppage due to verification flaws must wait until a verification report is actually received. Petitioners entitled to monthly payments pending further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order stopping honorarium. Petitioners entitled to honorarium as and when it falls due, provided they cooperate in future proceedings.

Mahipal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103730

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3784 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Mahipal Singh And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Dev, Kripa Shanker Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ajay Kumar Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent No. 1 and Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

¶7

The writ petitioners, who have been working as Shiksha Mitra in District Gautam Budh Nagar, is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 5.5.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder, the payments of honorarium to the petitioners have been stopped.

¶8

It is contended that petitioners were appointed as Shiksha Mitra in District Gautam Budh Nagar and after due verification they were being paid honorarium. In the year 2014, petitioners after following due process and verification of their educational records, had completed departmental BTC. In view of certain government orders, the District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar had sought verification of educational certificate of 33 teachers/Shiksha Mitra including the petitioners from Sampurnand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. Thereafter, the Examination Controller, Sampurnand Sanskrit University, Varanasi as per communication dated 26.9.2022 had informed that roll No. 26743 for Intermediate (Uttar Madhyama) to the petitioner No. 1 was not allotted and in graduation (Shastripariksha) petitioner No 1 was declared fail. Further, with regard to petitioner No. 2 it was informed that "no such roll number was allotted".

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on receiving of aforesaid verification report the District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated 5.5.2022 had stayed the disbursement of honorarium to the petitioners.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 12.5.2022 petitioners had submitted application along with affidavits before

¶11

the District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar for releasing of salary and for further verification of their educational qualification certificates. Thereafter, the District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar has again sent letter dated 30.5.2022 for re-verification, but no verification report has been received.

¶12

It is contended that no adverse orders either suspending or terminating the petitioners have yet been passed and in fact the petitioners are being allowed to function as Shiksha Mitra and work is being taken from them. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to get honorarium. It is also submitted that under the provisions of the Payment of Salary Act, 1978, there is no provision with regard to withholding the honorarium until verification report is not received.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents may hold a proper enquiry in the matter and if any adverse material is found against the petitioners in the enquiry, appropriate punishment may be imposed upon the petitioners.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled to payment of honorarium as and when the same falls due.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents have tried to justify the order for stoppage of honorarium on the ground that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and if proved can result in major penalty.

¶16

The Court has considered the rival contentions and has perused the record.

¶17

The Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. The Court finds that the petitioners have been discharging their duties as Shiksha Mitra since 2014. If a verification is being sought in respect of the getting the appointment on forged documents, the Court is of the opinion that penal action such as stoppage of honorarium may be resorted to only after receipt of verification report.

¶18

In view of the above, the Court finds that the action of the District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar/respondent No.2 in directing the stoppage of the payment of honorarium to the petitioners with immediate effect pursuant to the order dated 5.5.2022 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside to that extent. The petitioners shall be

¶19

entitled to their honorarium month to month as and when the same falls due. However, the petitioners are directed to cooperate in the proceedings, if any, initiated against them.

¶20

The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.5.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahipal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt. Manju Lata Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rachna Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shivanand Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rinki Choudhary Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Krishna Pal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Brahmanand Mishra Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others