Disposed

Sukhvir Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023WRIA/9690/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition by directing the Director of Education to consider the petitioner's claim for arrears of salary. The court also directed the District Inspector of Schools to provide necessary inputs and hear the managing committee before passing a final order on the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the claim for salary arrears; directed the fourth respondent to provide inputs and hear the committee before deciding.

Sukhvir Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134042

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9690 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sukhvir Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Sharma,Arvind Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

On the oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Committee of Management of Janta Inter College, Sikrara, Hathras through its Manager and the Principal are permitted to be impleaded as the fifth and sixth respondent, respectively.

¶7

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Sandeep Kumar on behalf of newly impleaded Respondent no.6 is taken on record.

¶8

At the very outset, Sri Sandeep Kumar (A.O.R. No.A/S 0088/12) made a statement at Bar that he represents newly added sixth respondent in the present petition, is armed with instructions in the matter and is ready to argue the same.

¶9

Heard Sri Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 and 4 and Sri Sandeep Kumar for newly impleaded Respondent no.6.

¶10

In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the fifth respondent.

¶11

The case of the writ petitioner as worded in the present petition is that the sixth respondent-institution is the Intermediate College recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and provisions of the Payment of Salary Act, 1971 are applicable. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj and accorded appointment on 15.10.2010 and he assumed the charge on 01.11.2010. In paragraph-6 of the writ petition, it has been averred that on the basis of the resolution of the fifth respondent, Committee of Management of the institution dated 19.01.2014, the petitioner was placed under suspension, which was approved on 08.05.2015. A resolution was further passed for dismissing the services of the writ petitioner, which was turned down by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board on 28.11.2019 and

¶12

the order whereof was communicated on 06.12.2019.

¶13

It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the fifth respondent, Committee of management preferred Writ-A No. 2460 of 2020 challenging the said approval order and on 14.02.2020, this Court while entertaining the said writ petition, refused to grant any interim relief except for calling for the response from the respondents. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the said writ petition is pending and the writ petitioner was permitted to joint on the said post on 04.06.2020 and he is continuously working on the said post. As per the writ petitioner on 03.04.2021, the fourth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Hathras has proceeded to pass an order entitling the writ petitioner for arrears of salary from 01.11.2012 to 30.06.2020. However, certain audit objections have been raised, which according to the petitioner have been satisfactorily replied by the writ petitioner.

¶14

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the fact that he is entitled to payment of salary for the aforesaid period, but it has been denied to him.

¶15

Prayer in the present petition is for the mandamus directing the second respondent, Director of Education (Secondary Education) Government of U.P., Prayagraj to accord consideration to the claim of the writ petition.

¶16

Sri Sandeep Kumar learned counsel for the newly impleaded sixth respondent on the basis of the instructions received by him has forwarded a copy of the communication dated 15.03.2022 under the signatures of the Director of Education (Anubhag-II) Education Directorate, U.P., Prayagraj addressed to the fourth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Hathras so as to contend that several clarifications have been sought from the latter, which is yet to be received and thus, according to him, final decision can only be taken when the inputs as required are provided to second respondent. According to Sri Sandeep Kumar, before proceeding to issue any direction to the second respondent to decide the matter, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 be also heard, as the matter obviously pertains to payment of salary (arrears) and the same is to be taken into consideration while determining the fact as to whether the writ petitioner actually worked or not or he is entitled or not.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel has also adopted the argument of Sri Sandeep Kumar, who appears for Respondent no.6 and according to him, also the matter needs to be decided at the first instance by the second respondent.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents have further made a statement that they do not propose to file any response to the writ petition and the writ petition be disposed off with a direction to second respondent to conclude the proceedings, which stand emanated post passing of the order dated 15.3.2022.

¶19

To such a suggestion, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection.

¶20

Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off without seeking any response from the respondents while directing the second respondent, Director of Education (Secondary Education) Government of U.P., Prayagraj to accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner for the payment of the salary for the aforesaid period in the light of the communication dated 15.3.2022. It is further directed that the fourth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Hathras shall provide all the inputs and the second respondent, before proceeding to decide the matter, shall hear the Committee of Management and its office bearers and functionaries before proceedings to pass any order in this regard. The aforesaid exercise is directed to be concluded within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶21

Since the writ petition is being disposed off on an exparte version without seeking any response from the respondents, thus passing of this order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated the matter on merits and the second respondent, Director of Education (Secondary Education) Government of U.P., Prayagraj shall do the needful independently without being influenced and obsessed by any of the observations made hereinabove.

¶22

The letter dated 15.03.2022 provided by Sri Sandeep Kumar appearing for newly impleaded Respondent no.6 is kept on record and is marked as Appendix 'A'.

¶23

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 N.S.Rathour

¶24

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sukhvir Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhvir 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

Sri Ram Sahay Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jagdeesh Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nandini Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anand Pal Singh Vs District Inspector of Schools and 3 Others

C/M Shri Bhuwal Smarak Sanskrit Mahavidyalay Ghaghara Latghat Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jai Shankar Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others