Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2072 (ALL)

RADHEY SHYAM v. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

2007-08-08

D.P.SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT Honble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner seeks a mandate to the respondents to pay his arrears of salary and all post retiral benefits including Gratuity and Provident Fund etc. 3. In spite of service on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 neither anyone has appeared nor filed their respective counter-affidavits. 4. Jan Sevak Adarsh Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Barkhara, Kayamganj, in District Farrukhabad is a duly recognized and aided institution where the petitioner was initially appointed as a Peon on 16.2.1981 on a substantive vacancy and continued to work but Principal vide order dated 19.8.1985 suspended him and subsequently, his services were terminated vide order dated 28.7.1985 without holding any enquiry. However, the District Inspector of Schools disapproved the termination by a detailed order dated 8.6.1987 and reinstated him with all consequential benefits. In spite of the order the Principal did not allow the petitioner to join nor the District Inspector of Schools ensured enforcement of his own order. The petitioner approached several authorities but in vain, forcing him to file a writ petition No. 18330 of 1990 which was finally disposed off vide order dated 24.10.1997 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to consider his representation. In pursuance thereof, the District Inspector of Schools again considered the matter and passed the order dated 8.10.1998 directing reinstatement and directed payment of salary with effect from 1.7.1998. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was allowed to join and was paid his salary from 1.7.1998. However, he held that for the arrears of salary, the matter has been referred to the higher authorities. In the meantime, the petitioner retired on 31.5.1999 and neither the arrears of salary nor the retiral benefits including pension was being paid thus he has approached this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that till date the higher authorities have not taken any decision with regard to payment of salary to the petitioner. He has also urged that apart from the salary, the petitioner is also entitled the retiral benefits as he had completed qualifying service for the same. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that till date the higher authorities have not taken any decision with regard to payment of salary to the petitioner. He has also urged that apart from the salary, the petitioner is also entitled the retiral benefits as he had completed qualifying service for the same. It is not denied that the termination of the petitioner dated 28.7.1985 was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools on 8.6.1987 and the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement and payment of his salary from the date of his termination i.e. 28.7.1985, but neither the Principal nor the Management cared to take heed of the order and even the District Inspector of Schools did not take any action to implement his order. The petitioner, a class IV employee was made to run from pillar to post without there being any fault on his part. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 8.6.1987 attained finality, therefore, was bound to be acted upon. Though, the District Inspector of Schools vide his second order dated 8.10.1998 directed payment of salary with effect from 1.7.1998 but for the period 28.7.1985 to 30.6.1998 he held that the matter had been referred to the higher authorities. The counter-affidavit was filed on 28.7.2001 but there is no averment as to what action was taken with regard to the payment of arrears of salary. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner was always prepared to work and, in fact, had approached different authorities and also this Court subsequently but the former two authorities took no steps either for his reinstatement or payment of salary. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel that since the petitioner did not work between 28.7.1985 to 30.6.1998, he is not entitled to salary. The argument is stated to be rejected. Once the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 8.6.1987 had disapproved the termination order, he was obliged under law to enforce it even by resorting to single operation of the account of the institution, but sadly no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalised for the inaction of the Management and the District Inspector of Schools. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to his salary for the aforesaid period. 6. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalised for the inaction of the Management and the District Inspector of Schools. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to his salary for the aforesaid period. 6. So far as the retiral benefits are concerned, the only argument of the learned Standing Counsel is that if the aforesaid period between 28.7.1985 to 30.6.1998 is excluded, the petitioner cannot be said to have completed the qualifying service. As already held hereinabove, the petitioner would be deemed to be in service at all relevant time between 28.7.1985 to 30.6.1998 and this period has also to be reckoned for the purposes of his retirement benefits. 7. As already noted hereinabove, that in spite of service neither the Management nor the Principal have entered appearance or filed counter-affidavit nor the District Inspector of Schools in his counter-affidavit has explained why the then incumbent did not implement his order dated 8.6.1987, the three authorities are to be blamed because of which the State has to pay for the aforesaid period. 8. For the reasons above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and a mandamus is issued to all the respondents to forthwith release the arrears of salary of the petitioner for the period between 28.1.1985 to 30.6.1998 within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order and to further release his retiral benefits including pension and gratuity etc. within a further period of four weeks. 9. In default of payment of the aforesaid amount within time prescribed, the petitioner would be entitled to 6% simple interest from 1.10.2007 till the date it is actually paid. 10. The District Inspector of Schools and the State after payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner, would be entitled to recover the amounts from the then Principal, Management of the institution as well as from the then District Inspector of Schools, jointly and severally, as arrears of land revenue. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to cost which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/- to be paid along with arrears of salary. ————