High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132896 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10492 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner :- Smt. Nasima Begum Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava III Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava-III, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Sri H.K. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for Respondents 1 to 4. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to the fifth Respondent. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, namely, Late Khairatul Islam was initially appointed on C.T. Grade on 01.07.1975 and thereafter he was assigned the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in Bhartiya Inter College, Dhatari, Firozabad on 01.07.1989. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that in the meantime, the husband of the writ petitioner was selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad for the post of Principal at Sri Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Chakathal, Aligarh and thereafter the appointment order was issued by the Manager of the fifth respondent-institution on 10.10.2021 and consequently, on 15.10.2011 he tendered his joining and his signature was attested on 24.10.2011.
Decision
In paragraph-6 of the writ petition, it has been further been averred that the husband of the writ petitioner had worked as Assistant Teacher for about 22 years in the erstwhile institution and as per the rules, circulars and guidelines, the last pay certificate and details of General Provident Fund and the Leave Accounts were entitled to be issued with regard to the finalization of the pay-scale of the petitioner in the new place of joining. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that though on 08.03.2017, the erstwhile Committee of Management had passed a resolution on 25.02.2017 resolving to relieve the husband of the writ petitioner, but the relieving order was not issued and further the consequential pay- scale etc. were not being granted to the writ petitioner. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner's husband preferred Writ A No. 6749 of 2018 for a direction to relieve him from the erstwhile Committee of Management. In paragraph-9 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has further asserts that the writ petitioner has superannuated on 31.03.2018 and consequently on 16.10.2020, the Manager of the erstwhile Committee of Management of the institution in question issued the relieving order. In paragraph-11 of the writ petition, the petitioner further asserts that the fifth respondent, institution sent a bill for requisition of grant of arrears of the salary of the husband of the petitioner from 15.10.2011 to 31.03.2018 amounting to Rs.4,61,493/- to the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh and further post-retirement, the documents were also transmitted for the purposes of finalization and payment of pensionary benefit. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the husband of the petitioner expired on 30.40.2021 and despite the fact that the writ petitioner being the widow of the deceased is representing the matter before the respondents, but no fruitful action with regard to payment of arrears of salary from 15.10.2011 to 31.03.2018 has been taken. In paragraph-12 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has specifically come up with the stand that the pension papers had been forwarded, pursuant whereto, now, the writ petitioner is getting family pension. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that the petitioner is entitled to get the arrears of salary for the aforesaid period, but she is not being granted the same. Prayer in the present petition is for mandamus commanding the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh to accord consideration with regard to payment of salary for a period from 15.10.2011 to 31.03.2018, and due to failure of the same, the writ petitioner be made admissible to penal interest from the date of entitlement till the actual payment is made. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that though as per the own saying of the writ petitioner, she is getting the family pension, but so far as the arrears of salary is concerned, the matter needs factual determination at the level of the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, as it has to take appropriate decision on representation/ claim set up by the writ petitioner. According to learned Standing Counsel, the third respondent has to take final decision after obtaining the necessary documents from the fifth respondent, Committee of Management and if the case may be, from erstwhile Committee of Management. A further statement has been made by the learned Standing Counsel that the respondents do not propose to file any response to the writ petition, as the petitioner shall approach the third respondent while filing a comprehensive representation in that regard and in case the same is preferred, the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the suggestion of the learned Standing Counsel has gracefully accepted the same. Considering the submissions of the rival parties and stands taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off without seeking any response while granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh, who, on the receipt of the same, shall proceed to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. It is further clarified that since the writ petition has been decided on an exparte version without seeking any response, thus, the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools shall summon and put to notice the fifth respondent, Committee of Management and if occasions the erstwhile Committee of Management and thereafter proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Needless to point out that passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has adjudicated the merits of the case and the third respondent shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law without being obsessed and influenced by the aforesaid observations. Order Date :- 6.7.2023 N.S.Rathour Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad