High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri V.K.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Singh for the respondent no.3.

2. This Court has passed following orders on 2.8.2017 and 17.9.2021: " Order date 2.8.2017 "

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a mandamus to the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher post i.e. Head Master of Primary Institutions or as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools run by Basic Education Board and to release the payment of salary to the petitioner along with arrears on that account.

2. At the time of hearing, the counsel for petitioner states that his Service Record is unblemished and he is entitled to selection grade and promotion, But he has been unnecessarily suspended twice by the Respondents No. 5 and 6 for extraneous considerations. He has alleged that the arrears of salary of seven months with effect from 20.11.2011 to 12.07.2012 has not been paid to the petitioner and then again from June, 2013 his salary has been stopped by the respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of an advertisement issued on 15.10.1994 he was selected on the post of Urdu Teacher in Parishadiy Vidyalay i.e. Prathamik Vidyalay, Mahuwa Kalan, Vikas Kshetra Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar. But due to malice on the part of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari his salary has been stopped. He has arrayed the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the then Block Education Officer as private respondents No. 5 and 6 to this writ petition.

4. This Court had issued a notice on 13.11.2013 to the private respondents and there is an office report dated 04.01.2014 which shows that the notice intended for Respondent No. 5 has returned back unserved. There is no service report with regard to Respondent No. 6. The office is directed to submit a report with respect to the service on Respondent No. 6 also.

5. It is the case of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari who has filed a counter affidavit on 01.10.2014 that the petitioner had obtained appointment on the basis of forged age certificate and he was under age at the time of his appointment. Moreover, it has been said that the petitioner has been suspended twice i.e. on 11.08.1998 to 03.07.2000 and from 21.11.2011 to 09.07.2012 and therefore, he cannot be paid salary for the period he remained under suspension and also because of initiation of disciplinary proceeding/inquiry against him, selection grade and promotion which are provided after 10 years satisfactory service, were not given the petitioner as his services cannot be said to be satisfactory.

6. There is no order brought on record with regard to any disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner states that as per the advertisement dated 15.10.1994 the petitioner was having the prescribed age of 18 years at the time of appointment.

7. The counsel for the petitioner is directed to place on record the correct facts with regard to his suspension and whether any disciplinary proceeding is pending against him or not.

8. The counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari is also directed to file a supplementary counter affidavit bringing on record the documentary evidence with regard to the allegations made in the counter affidavit against the petitioner.

9. List this matter after three weeks on 23rd of August, 2017. " Order date 17.9.2021" Petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer to direct the respondents to promote him on the post of Head Master in Primary Institutions or on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools run by Basic Education Board and to release his salary alongwith arrears. It is urged on behalf of petitioner that though petitioner is continuously working, but his salary has been withheld since 2012. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 2.8.2017, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed today in which an order dated 10.7.2012 is annexed as per which, petitioner has been awarded adverse enquiry and certain recovery is directed to be made from his salary. On a note of the District Basic Education Officer, an order appears to have been passed on 25.9.2013, as per which, the salary of teachers appointed contrary to Service Rules, be withheld and such notice be served upon teachers concerned. From the materials brought on record vide supplementary counter affidavit, this much is admitted that petitioner is a teacher and that neither any disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against him, nor any justification exists for stopping his salary. Petitioner is continuing in employment since 1994. Stoppage of his salary in the year, 2012 without holding any enquiry, prima facie, appears to be wholly arbitrary. Learned counsel for petitioner states that so far, as order dated 10.7.2012 is concerned, it has been served for the first time upon petitioner by way of an affidavit filed today Let an affidavit to this effect be placed on record within two weeks. List this matter once again on 6th October, 2021. Respondents in the meantime, are directed to resume payment of salary to petitioner in the event he is working and the prayer for release of arrears of salary shall be considered on the next date."

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the petitioner is getting salary, therefore, substantial grievance has been addressed. He further prayed that he will file a representation annexing all the relevant documents which are sought by the concerned respondent by way of repeated notice within three weeks and his prayer for arrears of salary be thereafter considered in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of repeated notice, petitioner is required to submit certain documents and in case said requirement is fulfilled, grievance of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of on the basis of above referred interim orders with liberty to the petitioner to submit his claim for arrears of salary alongwith requisite documents as sought by the concerned respondent within four weeks and it will be decided within a short period after the application is filed.

6. Petitioner's claim for consideration of promotion will be considered only after above referred exercise is completed in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri V.K.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Singh for the respondent no.3.

2. This Court has passed following orders on 2.8.2017 and 17.9.2021: " Order date 2.8.2017 "

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a mandamus to the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher post i.e. Head Master of Primary Institutions or as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools run by Basic Education Board and to release the payment of salary to the petitioner along with arrears on that account.

2. At the time of hearing, the counsel for petitioner states that his Service Record is unblemished and he is entitled to selection grade and promotion, But he has been unnecessarily suspended twice by the Respondents No. 5 and 6 for extraneous considerations. He has alleged that the arrears of salary of seven months with effect from 20.11.2011 to 12.07.2012 has not been paid to the petitioner and then again from June, 2013 his salary has been stopped by the respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of an advertisement issued on 15.10.1994 he was selected on the post of Urdu Teacher in Parishadiy Vidyalay i.e. Prathamik Vidyalay, Mahuwa Kalan, Vikas Kshetra Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar. But due to malice on the part of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari his salary has been stopped. He has arrayed the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the then Block Education Officer as private respondents No. 5 and 6 to this writ petition.

4. This Court had issued a notice on 13.11.2013 to the private respondents and there is an office report dated 04.01.2014 which shows that the notice intended for Respondent No. 5 has returned back unserved. There is no service report with regard to Respondent No. 6. The office is directed to submit a report with respect to the service on Respondent No. 6 also.

5. It is the case of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari who has filed a counter affidavit on 01.10.2014 that the petitioner had obtained appointment on the basis of forged age certificate and he was under age at the time of his appointment. Moreover, it has been said that the petitioner has been suspended twice i.e. on 11.08.1998 to 03.07.2000 and from 21.11.2011 to 09.07.2012 and therefore, he cannot be paid salary for the period he remained under suspension and also because of initiation of disciplinary proceeding/inquiry against him, selection grade and promotion which are provided after 10 years satisfactory service, were not given the petitioner as his services cannot be said to be satisfactory.

6. There is no order brought on record with regard to any disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner states that as per the advertisement dated 15.10.1994 the petitioner was having the prescribed age of 18 years at the time of appointment.

7. The counsel for the petitioner is directed to place on record the correct facts with regard to his suspension and whether any disciplinary proceeding is pending against him or not.

8. The counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari is also directed to file a supplementary counter affidavit bringing on record the documentary evidence with regard to the allegations made in the counter affidavit against the petitioner.

9. List this matter after three weeks on 23rd of August, 2017. " Order date 17.9.2021" Petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer to direct the respondents to promote him on the post of Head Master in Primary Institutions or on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools run by Basic Education Board and to release his salary alongwith arrears. It is urged on behalf of petitioner that though petitioner is continuously working, but his salary has been withheld since 2012. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 2.8.2017, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed today in which an order dated 10.7.2012 is annexed as per which, petitioner has been awarded adverse enquiry and certain recovery is directed to be made from his salary. On a note of the District Basic Education Officer, an order appears to have been passed on 25.9.2013, as per which, the salary of teachers appointed contrary to Service Rules, be withheld and such notice be served upon teachers concerned. From the materials brought on record vide supplementary counter affidavit, this much is admitted that petitioner is a teacher and that neither any disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against him, nor any justification exists for stopping his salary. Petitioner is continuing in employment since 1994. Stoppage of his salary in the year, 2012 without holding any enquiry, prima facie, appears to be wholly arbitrary. Learned counsel for petitioner states that so far, as order dated 10.7.2012 is concerned, it has been served for the first time upon petitioner by way of an affidavit filed today Let an affidavit to this effect be placed on record within two weeks. List this matter once again on 6th October, 2021. Respondents in the meantime, are directed to resume payment of salary to petitioner in the event he is working and the prayer for release of arrears of salary shall be considered on the next date."

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the petitioner is getting salary, therefore, substantial grievance has been addressed. He further prayed that he will file a representation annexing all the relevant documents which are sought by the concerned respondent by way of repeated notice within three weeks and his prayer for arrears of salary be thereafter considered in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of repeated notice, petitioner is required to submit certain documents and in case said requirement is fulfilled, grievance of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of on the basis of above referred interim orders with liberty to the petitioner to submit his claim for arrears of salary alongwith requisite documents as sought by the concerned respondent within four weeks and it will be decided within a short period after the application is filed.

6. Petitioner's claim for consideration of promotion will be considered only after above referred exercise is completed in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad