Rama Shanker Yadav v. Deputy Director of Education and Others). At that stage, this Court had consider
Case Details
Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4413 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rama Shanker Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Ji Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 01.1.2020 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia whereby salary payment claimed by the petitioners for the period May 2010 to January 2016 (by petitioner No. 1) and from May 2010 to March 2013 (by petitioner No.2) has been directed to be withheld till conclusion of the enquiry undertaken by Economic Offences Wing.
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners performed duties as Class-IV employees at the above described institution, for the entire duration for which salary payment is being claimed. Last, by the further observation made in paragraph-7 of the order dated 01.2.2016 passed by the Principal Secretary, his decision was made subject to final outcome of Writ-A No. 26307 of 2010. It is also a fact that the above writ petition itself came to be
Arguments
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is, they were regularly appointed Class-IV employees at the institution Sri Rameshwar Prasad Balika Uchhtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Rasara, Ballia since very long. Earlier a doubt had arisen as to whether such and other appointments were regular. Insofar as petitioner No. 1 Rama Shanker Yadav is concerned, earlier a dispute had arisen with respect to entitlement of salary for the period 01.5.1979 to July 1996. That dispute was adjudicated by the Court vide its order dated 15.5.2019 passed in Writ-A No. 37332 of 1999 (Rama Shanker Yadav Vs. Deputy Director of Education and Others). At that stage, this Court had considered the contents of the order dated 01.8.1996 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and it was inferred that the appointment of the petitioner was regular. Considering the fact, that petitioner had worked for the entire length of time for which he was claiming salary, direction was also issued for payment of the same. Apparently, the order dated 15.5.2019 passed in Writ-A No. 37332 of 1999 attained finality. Subsequently, certain other complaints had arisen with respect to appointments made at Ballia. That became the subject matter of challenge in Writ-A No. 26307 of 2010 (Dhruv Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. And Others). Occasioned by that, again salary payment of the petitioners was withheld. At that stage, pursuant to interim order dated 18.5.2015 passed in Writ-A No. 26307 of 2010, the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh passed a detailed order dated 01.2.2016 vis-a-vis the claim of the petitioners. Copy of that order is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Perusal of the same reveals that in the first place a conclusion was reached that the petitioners were surplus. However in the same paragraph (paragraph-6.1 of that order), it was then observed that on a fresh man power assessment it was found that both petitioners were entitled to payment of salary.
Decision
disposed of on 13.1.2017 with the following directions: "12. Accordingly, this batch of the writ petitions is disposed of with the following direction. (i) In case any teacher/institution is aggrieved by the order passed by the Committee, it would be open to him/it to take such recourse which is available under the law to them. (ii) The salary to all the teachers, who have been found to be working on the sanctioned post shall be released within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order." It is in such circumstance,petitioners earlier approached this Court by means of Writ-A No. 21355 of 2018 praying for payment of their salary. That writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 04.10.2018 with the following direction: "3. In view of the fact that necessary factual aspect are yet to be ascertained and the quantification of their pensionery benefit, if any, is yet to be made, without entering into the merits of the controversy, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction, in case the petitioners file their individual representations before the respondent no.3- District Inspector of Schools, District Ballia within a period of two weeks from today alongwith a certified copy of this order, the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of such representation being made. It is further expected, if the claim of the petitioners are allowed, payment shall be made available to them without any further delay." While giving effect to the said direction, the DIOS Ballia has now passed an order providing that the salary payment may be made to the petitioners only after conclusion of the enquiry being undertaken by the Economic Offences Wing. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, it clearly appears that there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners rendered service as Class-IV employees at the above named institution and have since superannuated on 31.12.2017 and 31.3.2013, respectively. Other than the period of dispute for which the present writ petition has been filed, the petitioners have been paid their salaries as also retiral dues. Also, it cannot be ignored that the matter has remained pending for very long i.e. 12 years since the Writ-A No. 26307 of 2010 Dhruv Narain Singh (supra) was entertained by this Court. In any case, the respondents State authorities have not been able to conclude their own enquiry for the last three years. It may be noted that the matter was placed before the Economic Offences Wing not under orders or direction of this Court but on the own initiative of the State Government contained in its order dated 26.4.2019. The petitioners have litigated for long. At present, there is nothing specific found recorded against the petitioners. Only because verification could not be made primarily due to lack of official records with the State authorities, due verification could not be made with respect to the official appointment of the petitioners. In any case, in the order dated 01.2.2016 itself, the Principal Secretary has found the petitioners to be entitled to be adjusted upon reassessment of man power requirement. For reasons not known to the Court, the date from which that was to be made effective has remained from being specified, in that order. In face of the earlier litigation suffered by the petitioner No. 1 and in view of the similarity of the facts obtaining with respect to the petitioner No. 2 too much time has passed. In absence of any specific objection to the appointment of the petitioners being shown to exist as may deprive them of payment of salaries for the work performed and in face of the further findings of the State authorities themselves whereunder the petitioners have been found entitled to salary payment of future period as also for reason of retiral dues etc having already been paid out, it appears that the State authorities may only be conducting a witch hunt insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. To the extent learned Standing Counsel contends that there is a fraud which his being investigated by the Economic Offences Wing with respect to other appointments, those facts are not before the Court, today. Therefore, no observation is being made with respect to the same. It is made clear, the decision in the present case has arisen purely on the individual and peculiar facts applicable to the two petitioners before the Court. Therefore, this decision may not operate as a precedent and it may not prevent the State from resisting other claims on the strength of material and evidence that may exist in those cases. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the observation that the petitioners be paid out due salary for the period May 2010 to January 2016 (to petitioner No. 1) and from May 2010 to March 2013 (to petitioner No.2) within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 22.9.2022 Faraz Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.09.23 10:17:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad