Allowed

Ram Nawal Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2024/1920/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Teacher challenged order withholding his salary during pendency of inquiry into alleged fictitious appointment. Court held salary cannot be stopped on mere allegations before charges are established, quashed the withholding direction and directed regular salary payment including arrears, subject to the inquiry's final outcome.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.01.2024 quashed; respondents directed to pay regular salary including arrears, subject to final decision of pending inquiry.

Ram Nawal Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21472

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1920 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Nawal Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Savita Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kumar Ayush

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Savita Jain learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Kumar Ayush learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 16th January, 2024 to the extent it directs withholding of salary of petitioner during pendency of inquiry.

¶8

It has been submitted that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that direction has been issued for withholding of salary payment against petitioner till completion of an inquiry pertaining to allegations of fictitious appointment being granted to petitioner as Assistant Teacher. It is submitted that such an order is punitive in nature and can passed only upon establishment of charges against petitioner.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 on the basis of instructions however submits that subsequent to impugned order, another order dated 28th February, 2024 has been passed bearing order No. 1694/23-24 in which directions have been issued for payment of arrears of salary to petitioner. It is further submitted that pendency of inquiry proceedings would not be a bar in payment of salary to petitioner.

¶10

Upon consideration of aforesaid submissions and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident that impugned order is against all legal tenets inasmuch as salary payment to an employee against whom only allegations have been levelled can not be stopped by the competent authority until and unless such allegations are established in due procedure of inquiry.

¶11

In view of aforesaid settled proposition of law as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for opposite parties, the impugned order dated 16th January, 2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari so far as it relates to directions regarding withholding of salary of petitioner

¶12

pending inquiry directing the opposite parties to ensure regular salary payment including arrears thereof forthwith which shall be subject to final decision of the inquiry proceedings pending against petitioner.

¶13

Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.3.2024 prabhat

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Nawal Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nawal Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anurag Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Work Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Malti Devi Vs Managing Director, U.P. Upbhokta Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Lucknow

Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others

Km. Lata Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. U.P. Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 2 Others

Shamsher Singh Vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 3 Others