Rajendra Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 5 Others

2 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 2, 3 & 5 and Shri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for for the Staterespondents No.6. No notice is required to be issued to respondent No.4 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.

¶11

3 . There is consensus at bar that the facts of the case have already been noted in the order dated 15.01.2025. For the sake of convenience the order dated 15.01.2025 is reproduced below:-

¶12

"1. Heard Sri Girish Chandra Verma, counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Raj Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the behalf of the respondents.

¶13

2. This Court by means of the order dated 06.01.2024 had granted three days' time to learned State Counsel to indicate under which provision of law or rule, the salary of the petitioner can be validly stopped.

¶14

3. It is in pursuance of the direction that an affidavit has been filed today sworn by Devendra Kumar Gupta, District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, responding to the query raised by this Court in Paragraph-12, it has been stated that the order dated 23.03.2023, the financial approval was granted with regard to the salary of the petitioner. By means of the impugned order dated 09.09.2024, it has been recorded that the approval granted on 23.03.2023 by the then D.I.O.S. was illegal and arbitrary, which order was passed by the erstwhile D.I.O.S. and the salary of the petitioner has been stopped from July, 2024 itself.

¶15

4. Learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that no order was passed pertaining to the the stoppage of the salary from July, 2024 by

¶16

which time only the order dated 23.03.2023 was existing. There is no dispute that the order dated 23.03.2023 still exits and is part of the record on the strength of which the petitioner claims to be entitled to regular payment of the salary. With regard to the previous order of this Court on the basis of which in the affidavit filed by the respondents today, the salary of the petitioner has been stopped on the strength of the order dated 26.05.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.25785 (SS) of 2008, Rajendra Prajapati versus State of U.P. and others.

¶17

5. We have perused the said order from which it is clear that the directions given by the writ court therein pertaining to grant of financial approval with regard to the appointment of the petitioner by the D.I.O.S. It is in this regard that the Court directed that the D.I.O.S. shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously and if any, guidelines/ orders are to be obtained from the Joint Director (Education), then the same shall also be obtained expeditiously. There is no doubt that the directions contained in the aforesaid order were pertaining to the grant of financial approval of salary in favour of the petitioner which order was complied with while passing the order dated 23.03.2023. There is no confusion that at that stage while passing the order dated 26.05.2008, the issue pertaining to regular appointment, stoppage of the salary of the petitioner was remotely in question in the said proceedings. Accordingly, the argument of respondent is that it is strength of the order dated 26.05.2008 that the order dated 09.09.2024 has been passed is unfounded and consequently, the said argument is rejected.

¶18

6. Accordingly, we find that there is no any law, rules, or any provision by which the salary of the petitioner could be stopped even otherwise once the salary has been approved by the competent authority, it becomes a valuable property protected under Article 300 (a) of the Constitution of India and cannot be withdraw except by adopting a procedure as laid down in law. Even if such an action has to be taken by the State Authority, the same can be done only after giving a reason and an opportunity of hearing which undoubtedly has not been in the present case.

¶19

7. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the reasons stated in the counter are rejected. Thus, we find that prima facie the order dated 09.09.2024 is bereft of any legal provision.

¶20

8. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be given two days' time to file a response to the affidavit filed today.

¶21

9. List this case on 22.01.2025 as fresh."

¶22

4 . Learned counsel for the parties state that considering the aforesaid order of this Court dated 15.01.2025 nothing further remains in this petition once the Court has already found the order dated 09.09.2024 to be bereft of any legal provisions.

¶23

5 . Considering the order dated 15.01.2025, the writ petition is

¶24

allowed . Order impugned dated 09.09.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-18 to the petition, is quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner.

¶25

6 . A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay regular salary to the petitioner on monthly basis. However, it would be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law under relevant rules.

¶26

Order Date :- 22.1.2025

¶27

prateek

¶28

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Rural Development Lko and 5 Others

Rajeev Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Energy and 5 Others

Suresh Babadur Singh Vs State of U.P.Thr Prin Secy Medical Eduation and 2 Ors.

Rahul Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Vivek Massey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and Others

Chetan Swaroop Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sugar Industry and Cane Deptt. Lko and Another