High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142063 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27014 of 2013 Petitioner :- Nand Lal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
Legal Reasoning
"It is very much possible that the manager of the Institution may not be interested in the teacher and, therefore, the relevant records might have been secreted. Consequently, where the petitioner had been repeatedly knocking the doors of this Court in respect of his grievance and had orders in his favour, it is not probable that those orders would not have been placed before the authorities for appropriate action. In these circumstances, once it is not in dispute that the appointment was accorded approval on 19.12.2009 and there exists no challenge to the qualifications of the petitioner to hold the post concerned and there is also no doubt with regard to the existence of vacancy, bearing in mind that there is no dispute with regard to the writ petitioner serving the institution post the order of approval dated 19.12.2009 till the order dated 20.9.2016, which was set aside by order dated 23.11.2016, and thereafter, he was not allowed to work pursuant to the order impugned in the petition dated 5.6.2017, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the petition and issuing directions as noticed above.
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2013 questioning the order dated 19.12.2009 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Mau, approving appointment of the petitioner with condition that payment of salaries should be made from the date of approval i.e. 19.12.2009 and also seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to pay arrears of salaries from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. 09.01.1991 to 31.03.2010. 3. During pendency of this petition, further proceedings of the respondents were decided by this Court in Writ-A No.30494 of 2017 and it ended in Special Appeal (Defective) No.529 of 2022. As this Court has already dealt with factual aspect in the said special appeal wherein the approval of the appointment of the petitioner was upheld by the division Bench of this Court on 21.11.2022. To the benefit of this case, the same is extracted as below:
Decision
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. It is noted that the record of Writ-A No. 27014 of 2013 was called for vide order dated 16.11.2022. The same shall be returned to the concerned section and the said petition may be listed before appropriate Single Judge Bench." 2 WRIA No. 27014 of 2013 4. Now only option left for this Court is to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled for payment of salaries as claimed w.e.f. 09.01.1991 to 31.03.2010. 5. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the approval order dated 19.12.2009 and he has also placed the translated copy of the said order along with rejoinder affidavit dated 17.08.2025. According to the said order, before granting approval, the authorities have considered the statement of the petitioner as well as the principal. On considering the statement of the principal, it clearly discloses that out of substantive vacancy of three posts of assistant teachers, the committee of management has appointed the teachers and accordingly, the petitioner has joined in service and continued to work in the institution by imparting education from 09.01.1991 onwards. Perusal of the order also clarifies that the authorities have not found any deviation or procedural irregularity in selection and it is also not in dispute with regard to sanction of the said post. Though the authorities have recorded statement of both the petitioner as well as principal but surprisingly without mentioning any reasons, the authorities imposed condition that salaries may be paid from the date of approval, is contrary to records. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in fact, the respondents have denied working of the petitioner in the institution even after approval order and they also passed the order dated 20.09.2016 suspending payment of salaries. The said order was interdicted in Writ-A No.53027 of 2016 which clearly declares that the petitioner has joined institution after his initial appointment and he is continuously working. Though there is clear contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not worked in the institution, was negated by the division Bench of this Court but during pendency of the present writ petition, the division Bench has not given any clear finding with regard to working of the petitioner in the institution from 09.01.1991 to 31.03.2010. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the 5th respondent has made categorical statement in his counter affidavit that the petitioner has been working in the institution since 1991. Based on the attendance register of the institution, the petitioner had worked in the said post. On the above averments, learned counsel has further stressed his argument that working of the petitioner can be ascertained only by records of the 5th respondent - institution. As per averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent clearly discloses that the petitioner has joined and worked in the said period. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for salaries from 09.01.1991 to 31.03.2010. 3 WRIA No. 27014 of 2013 8. In reply to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents has vehemently argued that as per averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, in fact the 3rd respondent received a letter on 09.09.2016 from the manager along with attendance register of the institution which clearly discloses that from 09.01.1991 to 01.04.2010, there is no signature of the petitioner in the attendance register and attendance of the petitioner has been obtained fraudulently on 09.01.1991 which is forged and fabricated. Hence, there is no record forthcoming with regard to working of the petitioner in the institution from 09.01.1991 to 01.04.2010. When there are no factual records of working of the petitioner in the institution at that point of time, the petitioner is not entitled for any salaries. Accordingly, the present writ petition may be dismissed. 9. Having considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the orders passed by the division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) Appeal No.529 of 2022, it transpires that though this Court has considered the entire issue but in fact, as regards the appointment of the petitioner and non-availability of records of approval order dated 31.03.2000 and also working of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment, this Court has clearly observed that the order granting approval has neither been recalled nor its authenticity has been doubted. Further there is every possibility of the manager of the institution that he may not be interested in the teachers and, therefore, records might have been secreted. For the above said reason, the petitioner is knocking the doors of this Court multiple times. Such observations are become final. 10. Also, on perusal of the order passed by the competent authority on 19.12.2009 clearly discloses that based on the statement made by the petitioner as well as principal, the petitioner joined in the said post immediately after selection on 09.01.1991. It is also clear that the petitioner was appointed in the sanctioned post. It is also not in dispute that the appointment was made as per procedure under the Act and Regulations. In the said circumstances, while granting approval of appointment of the petitioner after directions issued by this Court, the respondents ought not to have stipulated conditions that the petitioner is entitled to salaries only from the date of approval. In fact, there is no finding with regard to working of the petitioner in the impugned order. In such being situation, the respondents are not entitled to stipulate such conditions in the approval order dated 19.12.2009. Though the respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that based on the letter communicated by the manager of the institution, the 3rd respondent cannot deny payment of the petitioner from initial appointment. In fact, there is no record forthcoming as to whether any 4 WRIA No. 27014 of 2013 inquiry has been conducted with regard to non-working of the petitioner in the institution from 09.01.1991 onwards. Hence, in the said circumstances, as there is no clear record or finding with regard to non-working of the petitioner in the institution as his appointment dated 09.01.1991 was approved and no procedural lapses were found in the appointment of the petitioner, the respondents ought not to have denied salaries. 11. With the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed, setting aside the condition imposed by means of the order dated 19.12.2009 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Mau, for payment of salaries from the date of approval of his appointment and with direction to the respondents to release the monetary benefits to the petitioner as he is entitled to within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad