High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1657 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ram Kesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Gopal Singh,Brij Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Legal Reasoning
The controversy involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in Angad Yadav (supra) against which Special Appeal No.505/2018; Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and others Vs. Angad Yadav and others was preferred which was dismissed on 11.12.2018. For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgement passed in the case of Angad Yadav (supra) is quoted hereunder: "Applying these principles on the facts of the present case, I find that the petitioners in terms of the change of the academic session, when admittedly their dates of superannuation fall during the academic session i.e. 01st April, 2015 to 31st March, 2016 as their dates of birth are 05.04.1953, 01.07.1953, 17.4.1953, 01.05.1953, 01.07.1953, 08.06.1953, respectively, they were entitled for the sessional benefit and to continue upto 31st March, 2016. There was no fault on their part as they were not allowed to work after 30th June, 2015. A specific direction was issued not to allow them to continue beyond 30th June, 2015. The said direction, as mentioned above, was manifestly erroneous and contrary to the well settled practice and the relevant Rules to give the session benefit to such teachers whose date of superannuation falls during the academic session. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 08th October, 2015 rectifying the said mistake, hence the Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 that the teachers who were allowed to continue after the judgment of Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra) and the Government Order dated 08th October, 2015, will not be paid salary from 30th June, 2015 till their rejoining is arbitrary and unreasonable. When the Government itself had issued an order dated 08th October, 2015, there was no justification to issue the impugned order dated 02nd May, 2017, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra). As noted above, the Division Bench has declared the Government Order dated 15th June, 2015 illegal. Regard may be had to the fact that on the basis of the said order, the petitioners were denied sessional benefits. Once the said order was set aside, the petitioners became entitled to continue. The respondents have also allowed the petitioners to rejoin their position. Therefore, in the said background and on a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The petitioners are entitled for their salary from 30th June, 2015 till the date of their rejoining. Ordered accordingly.
Arguments
Heard Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 & 2, Sri Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5 and perused the record. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs :- "i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Banda/respondent no.4 to extend the benefit of judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) in favour of the petitioner. ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District- Banda (respondent no.4) to take immediate step for grant consequential benefit viz grant of Annual Increment due in July, 2015; benefit of 7th pay commission due in January, 2016 and Bonus for the year 2015- 2016 in favour of the petitioner within specific period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court. iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District-Banda (Respondent no.4) to take immediate steps for consequential benefit viz grant of Annual Increment due in July, 2015; benefit of 7th pay commission due in January, 2016 and Bonus for the y ear 2015-16 in favour of the petitioner within specific period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court. iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Banda (Respondent No.4) to consider and decide the representation dated 23.12.2021 within specific period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court (Annexure No.10 to this writ petition)." It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Head Master in Prathmik Vidyalaya, Block Mahuwa, Bhavai, District Banda and retired on 30.06.2015. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner worked from 01.07.2015 to 09.11.2015 as Head Master in the Institution pursuant to the Government Order dated 09.12.2014 but the salary/bonus for the Session 2015-16 has not been granted by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Angad Yadav And 7 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Writ-C No. 33360 of 2017, dt.19.08.2017) and as such it is sought to be contended that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioner.
Decision
Thus, the writ petition stands allowed." Learned Standing Counsel admitted the said fact that the factual as well as the legal controversy involved in present writ petition is identical to the case of Angad Yadav And 7 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Writ-C No. 33360 of 2017, dt.19.08.2017) decided on 19.08.2017. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed a representation on 23.12.2021 before the respondent no.4, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Banda, which remain pending till date. Learned Standing Counsel states that no useful purpose will be served in calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending and it may be disposed of with direction to the petitioner to raise his grievance by filing a fresh representation before the respondent no.4, who may be directed to decide the same within stipulated period. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into its merit and with the consent of parties, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.4, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Banda within two weeks from today raising his grievance, who shall consider and decide the same in the light of Angad Yadav's case within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with the representation. Order Date :- 21.2.2022 S.P. Digitally signed by SANJAY PURI Date: 2022.02.22 17:34:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad