Disposed

Renu Kumar Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024WRIA/8125/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought arrears of salary and inquiry order. Court directed petitioner to file a comprehensive application for the third respondent to pass an order clarifying appointment status, sanctioned strength, and salary entitlement within three months, while also hearing the fifth respondent, Committee of Management.

What the court decided

AI extract

Renu Kumar Singh vs State of Up and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:112400

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8125 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Renu Kumari Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Shalendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶7

In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to Respondent No.5.

¶8

The case of the writ petitioner is that there happens to be the Committee of Management of the Institution, Shri Shiv Mangal Singh Inter College, Beruarbari, District- Ballia, fifth respondent, which is recognized under the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 and the provisions of U.P. Act No.5 and U.P. Act Non.24 of 1971 stand applicable.

¶9

It is also the case of the writ petitioner that she was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Shri Shiv Mangal Singh Inter College, Beruabari, District Ballia on 22.10.1989. According to the writ petitioner, with regard to the payment of salary for the period from August 2009 to June 2016 and inquiry was set up pursuant to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 49460 of 2009 (Kaushal Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and others).

¶10

Records reveal that the said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 16.09.2014, consequently an order is stated to have been passed by District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, third respondent on 29.06.2016, for according the appointment to the writ petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner had assumed the charge and even infact is getting the regular salary. However, so far as the arrears of the salary of the aforesaid period is concerned, no decision has been taken despite the fact that already the salary bill has been sent by the fifth respondent, Committee of Management.

¶11

Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Ballia to pay arrears of salary to the writ petitioner from August 2009 to June 2016 along with interest.

¶12

This Court entertained the writ petition on 22.05.2024 followed by an order dated 30.05.2024 and 08.07.2024.

¶13

A personal affidavit/ counter affidavit of the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia has been filed sworn on 11.07.2024 wherein the appointment of the writ petitioner has been questioned, principally on the ground that pursuant to the order passed in Writ Petition No.18490 of 2007, Abhay Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P., as well as Writ Petition No.26307 of 2010, Dhurva Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P, a survey was conducted with regard to the strength of the teaching and nonteaching staff, vis-a-vis the people.

¶14

In the counter affidavit, it has been asserted that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the benefits as sought for.

¶15

Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that since no order in black and white has been passed, thus it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Ballia to pass an order detailing the reasons, so that the writ petitioner may have an opportunity to question the same in an appropriate proceeding while coming to know about the reasons for deferring or denying the said payments.

¶16

To such a submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the same.

¶17

Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of requiring the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive application along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the third respondent, who shall thereupon proceed to pass an order strictly in accordance with law bearing in mind the issue relatable to the appointment of the writ petitioner, the sanctioned strength as well as the entitlement of the payment of the salary bearing in mind the fact that the petitioner has been denied the arrears and is being paid the present salary. The said exercise should be completed within a period of three months.

¶18

Since the Committee of Management of the Institution is

¶19

not represented, thus before proceeding with the matter, it shall also be heard and its version be taken.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 N.S.Rathour

¶21

(Vikas Budhwar,J)

¶22

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

Renu Kumar Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Renu Kumar Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinod and 4 Others vs State of Up and 13 Others

Shubham Shukla vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Rai vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Beer Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohan Lal vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Firozabad and 5 Others

Ompal vs State of Up and 4 Others