High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172411 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14113 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner :- Haridwar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. On the oral request of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner the Regional Selection Committee, Varanasi Region, Varanasi be impleaded as sixth respondent. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today, notice is not being issued to the fifth respondent. The case of the writ petitioner is that the fifth respondent, C/M, Shri Saraswati Inter College, Tanda, Chandauli is an institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 stand applicable. The case of the writ petitioner is that the post of Principal in the institution in question fell vacant pursuant whereto one of the Senior Most Lecturer Sri Jamuna Chaubey was made to officiate as Principal in question and against the vacancy which has fallen vacant one Sri Kailash Nath Tiwari was promoted from L.T. Grade to Lecturer Grade giving a room for the vacancy against whom the writ petitioner was to be adjusted. As per the writ petitioner, he after facing the selections was accorded appointment and approval whereof was granted by the District Inspector of Schools on 16.12.1996 and the writ petitioner assumed the charge on 17.12.1996. According to the writ petitioner, he was made not admissible to the salary and there is no order either approving or disapproving passed at the end of the respondents so the writ petitioner preferred writ petition no. 34623 of 1998 which came to
Decision
be disposed of on 05.11.1998. Ultimately, an order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 26.04.2001 refusing to grant salary to the writ petitioner which even impelled the writ petitioner to file writ petition no. 18500 of 2001 which came to be allowed on 19.04.2002, however, again on 29.07.2002 the District Inspector of Schools, Chandauli disapproved the appointment of the writ petitioner which again led to filing of writ petition no. 34508 of 2002, which ultimately came to be allowed on 9.01.2004 and thereafter on 28.08.2004 the District Inspector of Schools, Chandauli accorded approval to the appointment of the writ petitioner for granting salary but from the date of passing of the order i.e. 28.08.2004. Though, the writ petitioner was continuously discharging the duties from 17.12.1996 to 31.07.2004 and even afterwards but the salary from the period 17.12.1996 to 31.07.2004 was not paid to the writ petitioner. The Committee of Management in question kept on representing the matter. Since nothing was done in that regard so the writ petitioner preferred writ petition no. 38410 of 2006 claiming arrears of salary from 17.12.1996 to 31.07.2004 which came to be disposed of on 03.04.2018 and thereafter on 18.05.2018 the District Inspector of Schools, Chandauli approved the payment of arrears of salary from 17.12.1996 to 31.07.2004. Though only paper work was done and nothing concrete was done in that regard so the writ petitioner resorted to contempt proceedings while filing contempt application (No. 738 of 2019) in which notices were issued, relevant instructions have been made from paras 33 to 36 of the paper book. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the second respondent, Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Prayagraj proceeded to pass the order dated 13.11.2020 negating the claim of the writ petitioner which again led to challenge in Writ A No. 7832 of 2022 which came to be allowed on 13.07.2022. In para 41 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has further asserted that on 26.12.2022, the second respondent made entitled to the writ petitioner for the payment of salary from 17.12.1996 to 31.07.2004 and ultimately the writ petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2017. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the fact that he is entitled to be considered for regularization in terms of Section 33G of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 but the same has not been considered and the writ petitioner was allowed to superannuate without any benefits in that regard. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner under Section 33G of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1 to 4, on the other hand, submits that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularization in terms of Section 33G is to be taken in profound at the first instance by the Regional Selection Committee, Varanasi Division, Varanasi who shall accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner. He further submits that he does not propose to file any response to the writ petition. Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the sixth respondent who shall on the receipt of the same proceed to decide the entitlement of the writ petitioner for regularization in terms of Section 33G of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 after putting to notice the fifth respondent. The said exercise is to be undertaken within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order looking into the background of each and every aspect of the matter including the claim of the writ petitioner. Needless to point out that the writ petition has been disposed of without seeking any response and without representation of the fifth respondent through its counsel. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated the matter on merits. Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad