High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12167 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8034 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Ojha And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Maheep Singh Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8035 of 2024 Petitioner :- Pradeep Ram And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Maheep Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8036 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Maheep Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8040 of 2024 Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Maheep Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8043 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Maheep Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8051 of 2024 Petitioner :- Savita Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Maheep Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9261 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt Meera Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9269 of 2024 Petitioner :- Devendra Nath Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9270 of 2024 Petitioner :- Gautam Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9570 of 2024 Petitioner :- Deepak Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9578 of 2024 Petitioner :- Suresh Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned Standing Counsel for State respondents refers a judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagirathi Prasad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, 2024:AHC:111436, wherein such belated claims were rejected mainly on the ground that they are belated. The counsels also refers a Government Order, dated 18.04.2019, that in order to accept the claim of the petitioners, they are required to place certain documents so that it could be verified that they have worked on their respective posts between the period for which they are claiming for arrears of salary, by way of filing the present bunch of petitions. 6. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that earlier letters were sent to the concerned principal, however, none of the petitioners have responded to it. However, learned counsel for petitioners has denied about any communication in regard to any information sought by the respondents from the petitioners. 7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record and I am of the considered opinion that at this stage there is still a scope with the petitioners to claim their arrears of salary if they are able to to show that they have worked for the respective period in question, irrespective of the fact whether the respondents have earlier asked to provide certain information. An opportunity is granted to the petitioners to provide the information, as sought in the referred Government Order or in case they are not able to provide any information, the reasons thereof. Even they can refer any legal provision, if so advised. in support of their submissions. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken within three weeks, thereafter the concerned State respondents will take a reasoned decision without much harping into technical issues, thereafter, preferably within a period of eight weeks.
Arguments
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Maheep Singh, learned counsel for contesting respondents and Mr. Amit Kumar Verma and Mr. Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsels for State respondents. 2. The writ petitioners, in the above bunch of cases, are either teaching or non teaching staff of Rewati Inter College, Rewati, District- Ballia and they claim that they were appointed in accordance with law by due procedure between 1990 and 1993, and they are regularly working on their respective post after financial approval. A dispute arose and certain writ petitions were filed before this Court and ultimately a committee was constituted for determination of Jan Shakti Nirdharan whereby all the petitioners were found to be within the sanctioned limit either in the year 2014 or 2016. It is also not under much dispute that after above determination, their salary is now being regularly paid. 3. Now these bunch of writ petitions are being filed for claim of their salary from their respective appointment till the determination of Jan Shakti Nirdharan. They claim they were getting salary from the date of their respective appointments, however, after few years their salary was stopped, subject to the determination of Jan Shakti Nirdharan and now when they fall within the said determination they are claiming their salaries which was stopped due to awaiting of the said determination. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners vehemently refers the judgments passed in the earlier rounds of litigation that directions were passed for the payment of salary/consideration of their claim and even similar situated employees of other institutions, on basis of orders passed by this Court which were challenged and were affirmed till Supreme Court, have got the salary for the said period even for certain period before the determination. At this stage learned counsel for petitioners submits that the documents which could be available with the petitioners could be provided to the concerned respondents, however, there may be some documents which they could not lay hand on, since there are very old, he next refers Regulation 11 of Payment of Salaries Act.
Decision
8. With aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad