High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143567 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36704 of 2014 Petitioner :- Indrajeet Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- G. Rai,Gopal Ji Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Gopal Ji Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for following relief: "(A) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.8.2013 passed by the District Inspector of Schools
Decision
Ballia (Annexure no. 10 to the writ petition). (B) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools Ballia to consider the claim of petitioner as per circular dated 29.3.2011 issued by State Govt. and pay the salary along with arrears to petitioner within a period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Petitioner was appointed in the year 1990 and his appointment was approved by respondent no.2, but surprisingly, respondent no.2 has withheld the salary of the petitioner vide order dated 3.11.1999. The said order was assailed before this Court in Writ A No. 54167 of 1999. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.07.2005, which reads as below: "By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for Issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the Impugned order dated 3.11.1999 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 and further for Issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the Functioning of the petitioner as L.T. grade teacher. The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of promotion of one Sri Shivnand Pandey on the post of Lecturer, a vacancy has taken place and after following the proper procedure as provided under the Act and Rules, the petitioner was given an appointment. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by order dated 15.7.1991 by the respondent No.2. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. Petitioner submits that salary was being paid but subsequently, the same was stopped, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way, of Writ Petition No.35929 of 1994, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.11.1994 directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation of the petitioner within two months Petitioner submits that on the basis of the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, the District Inspector of Schools, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 16.10.1996 by which the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. It has been stated in the order that the signature of the District Inspector of Schools is forged and no prior approval was taken prior to the appointment of the petitioner. A specific averment has been made in Paras 19 and 20 of the writ petition that before issuance of the order dated 3.11.1999 no show cause notice or opportunity has been given to the petitioner. As no show cause or opportunity has been given to the petitioner, as such, in view of the well settled principle of law, the same is liable to be quashed only on the ground that the order dated 3.11.1999 is against the principle of natural justice. A counter affidavit has been filed stating various other things but no reply to Paras 19 and 20 of the writ petition has been given in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. it is also very surprising that after para 14 no reply has been give to paragraphs 15 to 21. After para 14, the reply of para 22 of the writ petition has been given. It clearly goes to show that the averment made by the petitioner in the writ petition that no notice or opportunity has been give prior to the order dated 3.11.1999 appears to be correct. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. From the averment made in the writ petition, the same has not been controverted in the counter affidavit regarding notice and opportunity to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 3.11.1999. It is well settled law that if the allegations made in the writ petition are not controverted, it will be presumed that the allegations made in the writ petition are correct. In view of the aforesaid fact, as the order dated 3.11.1999 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and the same is against the principles of natural justice, as such, the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate and detailed order according to law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and the Committee of Management. The said order be passed by the respondent No.2 preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs." 4. Consequent to the same, respondents have released salary to the petitioner. But surprisingly again, the salary was withheld in 2011 and again on 20.08.2013, the respondents have stopped payment of salary on the ground that the petitioner is working on surplus post. The said order was assailed in the present writ petition. 5. Considering the submissions and material on record, this Court has passed an order on 18.07.2014, which reads as below: "The petitioner earlier approach this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 54167 of 1999, wherein an interim order was granted on 23rd December, 1999, that if the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Teacher, he shall be permitted to continue to work on the said post. The said writ petition was ultimately finally disposed of on 18.7.2005 and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner, in furtherance the District Inspector of Schools by means of order dated 5.11.2005, found that the petitioner's appointment was valid and he is entitled for payment of salary. Accordingly, the petitioner is working and receiving salary but by means of impugned order his salary has been stopped on the ground that the subject which the petitioner is teaching is not a recognized subject. The petitioner has made out a prima facie case. Learned Standing Counsel appears for State functionaries. He may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, within a week thereafter. Issue notice to respondent no.4 returnable at an early date indicating therein that he may file counter affidavit within four weeks from the date of receipt of a notice. Till the next date of listing the effect and operation of the impugned order 20.8.2013, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia as per it relates to the petitioner is stayed. The petitioner shall be permitted to continue as Assistant Teacher and his salary shall be paid regularly till further orders of this Court. List the matter after expiry of the aforesaid period." 6. Consequent to the abovesaid interim orders, the petitioner was continued in service and finally, on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.03.2025. In view of the same, nothing survives with regard to prayer (a). As far as prayer (b) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of Court that the respondents have not paid salary to the petitioner from February, 2011 to 17.07.2014. Only respondents have released salary after the interim order granted by this Court in the present writ petition. Hence, petitioner is also entitled for salary for the said period. 7. In such circumstances, as the petitioner was continued and retired by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court on 18.07.2014, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file claim/representation, within a period of two weeks from today before the third respondent. On filing of such claim, the third respondent may consider the same, if required by getting records from the fourth respondent and pass appropriate order, within a period of two months thereafter. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad