Hearing petitioner regarding delay in concluding inquiry and granting benefits. Court disposed of petition directing third respondent to comply with earlier order within one month without adjudicating on merits.
Direction to the third respondent to comply with the order dated 7.1.2022 within one month to conclude the inquiry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:133074
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9118 of 2023
Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Khare
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel who appears for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Rajesh Khare, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and 5.
The case of the writ petitioner has couched in the present petition is that the writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Art Group) in Primary School Devani, Block Ram Nagar, District Chitrakoot on 19.11.1999 under Special B.T.C. Trained Unemployed Course and he joined the post in question on 25.11.1999 and thereafter he was promoted as Science Teacher in Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ghurehata, Block Ram Nagar, District Chitrakoot by virtue of the order passed by the Promotion Committee on 30.7.2003. Since the writ petitioner had passed Intermediate Science Group as a private student with the permission of the fifth respondent, District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District-Chitrakoot, he was promoted as a Head Master vide order dated 26.4.2018. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that due to some political score and enmity certain complaints were lodged against the writ petitioner which virtually occasioned passing of an order dated 25.2.2021 passed by the fifth respondent whereby the writ petitioner was demoted on the post of Assistant Teacher Primary School.
In paragraph 8 of the writ petition the writ petitioner has further averred that on 3.3.2021 the fifth respondent without notice to the writ petitioner terminated his service. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that proceedings were drawn by the writ petitioner under Departmental Rules pursuant whereto on 7.1.2022 an order has been passed by the Second Respondent, Director Basic Education of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow whereby on the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner the order dated 3.3.2021 terminating the services of writ petitioner was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the third respondent, Additional Director, Basic Education of Uttar Pradesh,
Prayagraj to consider the claim of the writ petitioner and to conduct appropriate inquiry with regard to the benefits relating to promotion and the issue with regard to the allegation as to whether the writ petitioner belongs to physically handicapped quota or not and benefits attached to it.
It is further the submission of the writ petitioner that the direction of the second respondent to the third respondent was for a period of one month to complete the entire inquiry proceedings.
According to the petitioner as stated in paragraph 11 of the writ petition the writ petitioner has been reinstated as an Assistant Teacher in Composite School Rampur, Block-Ram Nagar, District Chitrakoot on 14.4.2022 but the remaining salary and arrears of the termination period from 4.3.2021 to 13.4.2022 has not been extended to him.
As per the writ petitioner since the action of the respondents was per se legal and no decision with regard to payment of salary post passing an order by the second respondent on 7.1.2022 was passed so the writ petitioner preferred Writ-A No.15626 of 2022, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others before this Court on 17.10.2022 wherein this Court after noticing the argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and after hearing the respondents therein disposed of the writ petition directing the fourth respondent, District Basic Education Officer, Chitrakoot to decide the representation of the writ petitioner on 9.6.2022.
Grievance of the writ petitioner in the present petition is that despite the fact that there is already a direction of the Second Respondent, Director, Basic Education of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to the Additional Director Basic Education of Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj in term of the order dated 7.1.2022 to decide the issue with regard to the promotion of the writ petitioner as well as with regard to the factual determination as to whether the writ petitioner belongs physically Handicapped category or not but the same has not been acceded too.
Prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the third respondent, Additional Director, Basic Education of Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj to conclude the inquiry within one month for the irregular promotion in the year 2001, 2003 and 2005 and handicapped allowances since 2005 pursuant to the order dated 7.1.2022.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Rajesh Khare, appearing for the respondents no. 4 and 5 on the other hand
submits that though there is an order dated 7.1.2022 of the second respondent requiring the third respondent to decide the aforesaid issues within a period of one month but according to him the issues with relation to aforesaid aspects cannot be gone into the present proceedings as according to the order of the second respondent dated 7.1.2022 it is the third respondent who has to conclude the proceedings and give a logical end to the same.
According to the learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Khare who appears for the respondents no. 4 and 5 no furituful purpose will be solved in detaining the writ petition on board and they do not propose to file any response to the same.
Considering the submissions of rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off, without seeking any response from the respondents while directing the third respondent to comply with the order dated 7.1.2022 passed by the second respondent within a period of one month from the date of the production of the certified copy of the order and to conclude the inquiry in that regard.
Needless to point out that the writ petition is being disposed off on an ex parte version without seeking any response. thus passing of this order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated on the merits of the matter.
As per the averments contained in the writ petition and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 7.1.2022 is still intact thus, this Court on the basis of the aforesaid statement is proceeding to decide the case.
Needless to point that passing of this order may not be construed to be an order on merits as the third respondent shall decide the controversy in question subject to any legal impediment within a period of one month.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off .
Order Date :- 6.7.2023
piyush
Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the third respondent is directed to comply with the earlier order to conclude the inquiry within one month.
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey
State Of U.P.
Vikas Budhwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
