Someshwar Nath Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2024WRIA/2709/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Head Clerk and Assistant Clerk in an aided inter college challenged the District Inspector of Schools' order recovering alleged excess salary and stopping their pay. The court issued notices, sought counter affidavits, stayed the recovery, and directed continued payment of salary pending further orders.

What did the court decide?

Recovery under the impugned order dated 1.2.2024 stayed until further orders; petitioners' salary for their current posts to be paid subject to legal impediment.

Someshwar Nath Mishra and Another vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 20

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2709 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Someshwar Nath Mishra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Dikshit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Under challenge is the order dated 1.2.2024 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, District- Barabanki.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are working as Head Clerk and Assistant Clerk in Janpad Inter College, Harakh, District- Barabanki which is a recognized and aided institution. He added that once the post of Head Clerk became vacant, the petitioner no. 1 was promoted on the post of Head Clerk and petitioner no. 2, who was working on the Class IVth post, was promoted on the post of Assistant Clerk, as the committee of management had sent the proposal with respect to the same and the petitioners were getting salary from the State Exchequer on their respective posts. He further argued that the District Inspector of Schools without considering the fact that there is no fault on the part of the petitioners or no fabrication or forgery is committed on their behalf to get benefit of the payment of salary from the State Exchequer and if any excess payment is made, the petitioners are not responsible for the same. He further added that not only the order with respect to the recovery of excess amount is passed but the salary of the petitioners have also been stopped. He added that without sufficient and cogent evidence, the impugned order dated 1.2.2024 has been passed.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has refuted the aforesaid facts and submitted that since the excess payment was done for the post, for which the petitioners are not entitled and, therefore, the order dated 1.2.2024 has rightly been passed.

¶9

The matter requires considerations.

¶10

Issue notice to the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 returnable at an early date.

¶11

Steps be taken within a week.

¶12

Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks.

¶13

A week's time thereafter is granted to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶14

List thereafter.

¶15

Until further orders of this Court, impugned order dated 1.2.2024 is stayed so far as recovery from the petitioners are concerned. Payment of salary be made to the petitioners for their respective posts on which they are working as on today, if there is no legal impediment.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.4.2024 Anuj Singh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Someshwar Nath Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Someshwar Nath Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Jain and Ors. Vs Smt. Raj Kumari Shukla and Ors.

Mathura Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. through Its Secy.Revenue Dept.Lucknow and Ors.

Sudheer Kumar Dixit S/O Ambika Prasad Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Revenue and Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Addl.Commissioner Lucknow and Others

Devendra Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Jainul Abdeen Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and Others