Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1306 (ALL)

Ganga Singh v. Ram Adhar Dixit

2002-09-18

RAKESH TIWARI

body2002
JUDGMENT : - Rakesh Tiwari 1. HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. THESE writ petitions are being taken up together as the facts of these writ petitions are inter connected. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for issuing direction to the respondents to treat the petitioners on duty as well as to sign the attendance besides the payment of salary to him. 3. THE brief facts of the case are that petitioner Ganga Singh was appointed as peon in Janta Junior High School, Bichchand Paharpur, District Etah on 5.3.1986 on probation for one year, but on 30.6.1987 he submitted resignation from his post and the same was accepted by the Committee of Management by resolution dated 1.7.1987. 4. ON 15.10.1987 one Avadh Bihari was appointed as peon on the post of Ganga Singh, but he left the institution after six months as he got some employment. ON 1.1.1988 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Ganga Singh after leaving institution by Avadh Bihari. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari accorded approval and passed the salary bills up to March, 1988. Lekha Adhikari passed an order on 27.5.1988 directing the Committee of Management to make payment of salary to Ganga Singh. Against the order dated 27.5.1988 passed by the Lekha Adhikari, Committee of Management filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11024 of 1988. On 14.7.1988, Lekha Adhikari passed an order for recovery of the amount of salary paid to the petitioner, as the petitioner was removed from service by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 30.5.1988. 5. GANGA Singh, petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14074 of 1988 alleges that he was confirmed on the post of peon. Deduction of G.P.F. contribution was also made from his salary with effect from 16.9.1987, but without any reason the Manager of the School stopped taking work as well as the payment of salary from July, 1987, on the ground that he had submitted his resignation. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah and filed an affidavit before him to the effect that he had not tendered any resignation. This fact has also been mentioned in para 9 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14302 of 1988. 6. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah and filed an affidavit before him to the effect that he had not tendered any resignation. This fact has also been mentioned in para 9 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14302 of 1988. 6. AFTER considering the affidavit and other materials on record, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed orders on 22.4.1988, 5.3.1988, 13.5.1988 and 6.7.1988 directing the Committee of Management to pay salary to the petitioner as he was an approved Class IV employee of the institution. This fact is also apparent from Annexures-5 to 8 to the writ petition. The case of the Committee of Management in respect of the resignation is that resignation submitted by Ganga Singh was disbelieved by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to Rule 21 of U. P. Basic Education Rules, 1972, no Class IV employee can be removed from service without prior approval of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari. No such approval has been taken by the Committee of Management, hence the petitioner cannot be removed from service as theory of resignation put forward by the Committee of Management has got no legs to stand. A perusal of the counter-affidavit in this writ petition shows that the Committee of Management had appointed Ram Veer, which was never approved and, therefore, he was not entitled for payment of salary. The case set up for Ram Veer in the writ petition with regard to his appointment cannot be accepted as his appointment has not been approved by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari under Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... 7. ADMITTEDLY, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari has dis-believed the theory of the Committee of Management that the petitioner has resigned and directed for payment of salary to the petitioner. His post did not fall vacant as such neither appointment could be made nor he could be removed except with the prior approval of Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Therefore, the appointment of Ram Veer as Class IV employee in place of petitioner was void and illegal. 8. IN view of the above, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari has not committed any illegality in directing the Committee of Management for payment of salary to the petitioner by orders dated 14.7.1988 and 27.5.1988. Therefore, the appointment of Ram Veer as Class IV employee in place of petitioner was void and illegal. 8. IN view of the above, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari has not committed any illegality in directing the Committee of Management for payment of salary to the petitioner by orders dated 14.7.1988 and 27.5.1988. Reference may also be made to Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11024 of 1988, Committee of Management, Janta Junior High School v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah. In the present writ petition, the validity and correctness of the order dated 27.5.1988 was also challenged. This Court while dismissing the writ petition passed the following order : "This petition, as filed, is vague as the records have not been placed faithfully. The order which aggrieved the petitioner is dated 27th May, 1988, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, passed by the Lekha Adhikari, Office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah. This order itself mentioned an earlier order made on 23rd May, 1988. The order dated 23rd May, 1988, passed by the Lekha Adhikari, appended as Annexure-3, yet refers to two other orders of 23rd May, 1988 and 27th April, 1988. These orders have not been placed on the record of the writ petition. The petition affects the right of a peon, Ganga Singh, who has, otherwise, not been made party to the petition. Thus, with an inadequate record and the person who might have been affected not having been made party to the writ petition, the petition as presented is inappropriate and is an abuse of the process of the Court and is, thus rejected." 9. THUS, the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management, Janta Junior High School already stands dismissed by an order dated 27.9.1988. In so far as the case of Ram Veer is concerned, his appointment is illegal. 10. NO other point has been pressed before me. In view of the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the salary of the petitioner along with the arrears and all other consequential benefits to which he would have been entitled under law. No order as to costs. 11. THE writ petition filed by Ram Veer being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14302 of 1988 is dismissed. No order as to costs.