Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 901 (ALL)

Prem Narain Nigam v. State Of U. P.

1997-08-07

SUDHIR NARAIN

body1997
JUDGMENT : Sudhir Narain, J. The Petitioners seek writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay salary of the entire teaching and non-teaching Staff of Adarsh Higher Secondary School, C, O. D., Kanpur since July, 1997 upto their absorption in other institutions in the year, 1981. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Adarsh School Society, Kanpur was running the institution known as Adarsh Junior High School, C. O. D., Kanpur. In the year 1960 the institution was raised to the status of High School and since then it was known as Adarsh Higher Secondary School, C. 0. D., Kanpur. In the year 1973 the school came on the grant-in-aid list. The management decided to close the institution. On 7.6.1977 the Manager issued a letter to the teaching and non-teaching staff terminating their services and paid three months' salary. 3. The Petitioner had approached to the Director of Education, U.P. On 4.2.1982, the Deputy Director of Education IVth Region, Allahabad passed an order directing absorption of the Petitioners in different institutions. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order of termination was in violation of the provisions of Section 16G(3) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The management could have terminated the services of the teachers only after obtaining prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The approval having not been taken, the Petitioners shall be treated to continue in service till they are absorbed and are entitled to get the salary. This contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted. The services of the Petitioners were not terminated by way of punishment. The school was closed down and the Petitioners were given notice to this effect. The Petitioners shall be treated to have been retrenched. 5. It is because of the retrenchment of the Petitioners, they have been absorbed in service in different institutions by an order passed by the Deputy Director of Education. Section 16EE(6)(c) defines retrenchment as retrenchment in relation to an employee of an institution means the termination of his services for any reason other than resignation, retirement or removal by way of punishment inflicted in disciplinary proceedings. The termination of service because of closing down of an institution shall be taken as retrenchment. 6. Section 16EE(6)(c) defines retrenchment as retrenchment in relation to an employee of an institution means the termination of his services for any reason other than resignation, retirement or removal by way of punishment inflicted in disciplinary proceedings. The termination of service because of closing down of an institution shall be taken as retrenchment. 6. The second submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioners are entitled to get salary for the period they were retrenched till they were absorbed. He placed reliance upon Clause (ii) of Sub-section (3) of Section 16EE of the Act which provides the period of substantive service rendered by an employee in an institution before the date of his retrenchment shall be counted for the purpose of his seniority and pension. This provision does not provide that retrenched employee shall be entitled to salary for the period he remained unabsorbed. In this petition, there is no prayer by the Petitioners that their seniority has not been counted taking into consideration the services which they have already rendered in another institution or that period shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority and pension. 7. In case there is any dispute in this regard, it is always open to the Petitioners to claim the seniority or the amount of pension taking into account the period they worked in another institution. 8. The last submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that after they had been retrenched, they were running the institution, collected certain funds and entrusted the same to District Inspector of Schools and are entitled to the said amount. This relates to question of fact. If the Petitioners had run the institution on their own and had paid any money to the District Inspector of Schools, the Petitioners can make representation in this respect to the District Inspector of Schools who will enquire the matter and pass appropriate order. 9. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.