Disposed

Dr Lalit Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023WRIA/595/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition regarding the continuous appointment of a teacher/lecturer. Relying on Supreme Court directions, the court ordered retention of the petitioner in the post and extension of state financial benefits till a regularly selected candidate joins.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to continue as TGT/lecturer and receive financial benefits till a regular candidate is appointed.

Dr Lalit Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:51159

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 595 of 2005

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr Lalit Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- H G S Parihar,Meenakshi Singh Parihar

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C S C

¶6

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

¶7

Heard Ms. Meenakshi Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondentsState.

¶8

While entertaining the writ petition, interim order was granted vide order dated 28.1.2005, operative portion is being quoted below:

¶9

"Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to pay salary to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2005 and continue to pay the same every month. This order shall be operative if the petitioner is discharging duties functions and responsibilities of the post. This arrangement shall continue till a duly selected candidate by the concerned Selection Board joins the post held by the petitioner in the institution."

¶10

Controversy involved in the present writ petition was engaging attention of the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench in Writ Petition No.655 of 2014 titled 'Abhishek Tripathi v. State of U.P. though Secy. Secondary Education, Lko. & Ors., which was decided vide order dated 17.12.2015 with the direction that the Committee of Management has no right to make appointment, therefore all appointments were held to be illegal.

¶11

The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8300 of 2016 titled 'Sanjay Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others' wherein by means of a judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court resolved that by enforcing special right fresh selection proceeding be initiated by giving weightage to the teachers appointed under Section 16-E(11) or on ad hoc basis. In pursuance to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, special right proceedings were initiated and selections were made by inviting applications from candidates who were

¶12

parties to the litigation. The result of the same has been declared and selection proceedings have been completed and report in this regard has also been submitted before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶13

In view of the above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the respondents that the teachers/ lecturers who are at present the TGTs and lecturers would continue to be so employed till a regularly selected candidate is appointed and to the extent the financial benefits are given by the State Government to the institutions against appointments made in compliance with Section 11-E(11) of the Act, the same will also be given to provide succour to the TGT/ lecturers.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Gautam

¶15

Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr Lalit Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Lalit Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education and 3 Ors.

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

Ms.Sangya Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.through Secy.

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman and 6 Ors.

Mata Prasad Vs U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam through Its 2 Ors.

Ram Kishan S/O Jagesjwar Prasad and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. Appoint and Personal and Ors.

Abdul Malik Second Bail Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

U.P.State Sugar Corp. Vs Manoj Tandan