Disposed

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

Allahabad HC25 May 2023WRIA/5232/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, challenged a recovery certificate issued after termination. The Court noted an effective alternative remedy under the UP Basic Education Rules and disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file an appeal. The Court stayed recovery of salary for four months or till the appeal outcome.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner restrained from recovery of salary for four months or till appeal decides; petition disposed of directing petitioner to file appeal.

Sudha Rani Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117245

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5232 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sudha Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 3 & 4. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 5.

¶7

The petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary Institution run by Board of Basic Education in District Pratapgarh on 1.4.1998, has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the recovery certificate dated 13.2.2023 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, whereby consequent to the termination order dated 12.2.2021, recovery certificate dated 13.2.2023 has been issued him.

¶8

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.

¶9

Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner has been inflicted with the major penalty of removal 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.

¶10

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

¶11

Teacher, protection may be granted by this Court till the Appeal is decided.

¶12

Admittedly, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an Appeal against the termination order dated 12.2.2021 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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, whichever is earlier, the respondents are restrained from making any recovery from the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned order dated 12.2.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha Rani 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

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

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