Disposed

Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2023WRIA/5164/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition for quashing the order removing the petitioner from service, directing him to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal with the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj, within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appeal within two weeks; respondents restrained from salary recovery for four months pending appeal.

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116628

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5164 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ardhendu Prakash Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi)

¶4

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ardhendu Prakash Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶6

The petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Teacher, by order dated 27.07.2010 and had been functioning on the said post since the year 2010, has approached to this Court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.07.2021, passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, whereby, the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher has been dispensed with on the ground that the petitioner has been working as Assistant Teacher on the basis of testimonials of some other Sunil Kumar Singh S/o Ramayan Singh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned order suffers from the vice of illegality inasmuch as the petitioner being a confirmed employee was required to be subjected to the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education (Staff) Service Rules, 1973 read with U.P. government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999. The procedure prescribed under the said Rules have not been followed. The impugned order proceeds on the report submitted by the Block Education Officer, Development Block-Barhaj dated 09.10.2020 and on the report obtained after police verification through Superintendent of Police, Deoria.

¶8

Shri Ashish Kumar Nagvansi, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner has been inflicted with the major penalty of removing from service and the said order is appealable under the U.P. Basic Education (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, before the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Prayagraj, and the petitioner having an efficacious alternative remedy this Court need not interfere with the impugned order, at this stage.

¶9

Faced with the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to avail the remedy of filing an Appeal under Rule 5 (3) of the Rules and since the respondents are proceeding to make recovery of the salary paid to the petitioner since the year of joining on the post of Assistant Teacher, protection may be granted by this Court till the Appeal is decided.

¶10

Admittedly, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an Appeal against the order dated 15th July, 2021 and since disputed questions of fact have been agitated in this writ petition, the Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 5 (3) of U.P. Basic Education (Staff) Services Rules, 1973 within two weeks from today.

¶11

In the eventuality of filing the Appeal, by the petitioner, within the time allowed by this Court, the Appellate Authority, i.e. Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj, shall proceed to entertain the appeal and decide the same on merits and shall not reject the same on the ground of limitation. The Appeal shall be decided by the Appellate Authority, within three months from the date of filing of the said Appeal.

¶12

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is provided that for a period of four months, from today, or till the decision in Appeal, which ever is earlier, the respondents are restrained from making any recovery from the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria.

¶13

If the appeal is not filed, by the petitioner within the time allowed, the protection granted in this order shall not be available to the petitioner and it shall be open for the respondents to proceed with the recovery.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 Deepak/

¶15

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

Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 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

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

Ayushman Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Subhawati Devi Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Sudha Rani Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Naresh Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shyam Narayan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others