Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 694 (UTT)

NAVEEN CHANDRA JOSHI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-10-30

ALOK SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). 1. Undisputedly, petitioner, who was working as Assistant Clerk in H N Inter College, Haldwani, was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.05.1977 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner; after disciplinary inquiry, Committee of Management of College vide order dated 03.04.1978 decided to terminate the services of the petitioner; matter was referred to District Inspector of Schools, Nainital for approval; District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 20.06.1978 was pleased to approve the termination of the petitioner so awarded by the committee of Management of College. 2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Nainital. Appeal, so filed by the petitioner, was dismissed vide order dated 21.04.1979. Feeling aggrieved petitioner preferred a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5030 of 1979 before Allahabad High Court. Learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court vide judgment dated 05.07.1994 was pleased to allow the writ petition. Operative portion of the judgment dated 05.07.1994 reads as under: “For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The order dated 20.06.1978 passed by the District Inspector of Schools and the order dated 21.04.1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nainital are quashed. The parties shall stand relegated at the stage of approval before District Inspector of Schools, who shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing portion, and in the limit of the observation made above. The petitioner shall be treated under suspension through out this period and shall be entitled for the suspension allowance. Since the matter is very old, the District Inspector of Schools shall pass order within three months from the date of a copy of this order is filed before him.” 3. Pursuant to the order dated 05.07.1994, petitioner as well as Committee of Management was heard by District Inspector of School, Nainital and ultimately, approval, on the termination of petitioner, so awarded by the Committee of Management, was accorded on 20.05.1995 under Regulation 37 of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner again preferred an appeal before Deputy Director of Education, Nainital and also filed writ petition no. 12356 of 1998 before Allahabad High Court. When writ petition no. 4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner again preferred an appeal before Deputy Director of Education, Nainital and also filed writ petition no. 12356 of 1998 before Allahabad High Court. When writ petition no. 12356 of 1998 was taken up for hearing, statement was made by learned counsel for the petitioner before Allahabad High Court to the effect that his appeal is pending disposal before Deputy Director of Education, Nainital for granting subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. 5. Learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court vide judgment dated 10.04.1998 disposed of writ petition no. 12356 of 1998. Order dated 10.04.1998 reads as under: “The petitioner is claiming subsistence allowance for the year 1979 till date. In para 33 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner has preferred appeal the order of the District Inspector of Schools Nainital dated 20.05.1995 whereby, it is alleged that he did not permit the petitioner to get subsistence allowance. As the petitioner has filed appeal/representation before the Deputy Director of Education, Nainital, as stated in para 33 of the writ petition, the Deputy Director of Education, Nainital, is directed to decide the appeal/representation of the petitioner within two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order along with true copy of this writ petition before him after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, Committee of Management of the Institution concerned and making necessary enquiry into the matter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of finally.” 6. Thereafter, matter was taken up by Deputy Director of Education, Nainital and appeal, so filed by the petitioner, seeking subsistence allowance for the period of suspension was dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.08.1998. Feeling aggrieved petitioner preferred present petition. 7. Impugned order dated 19.08.1998 reveals that payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension was denied on the ground that termination awarded by the Committee of Management had already been approved by the District Inspector of School, therefore, there is no question of payment of subsistence allowance. 8. Admittedly, petitioner was not awarded any punishment for withholding the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, therefore, petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension. Consequently, present petition is allowed. 8. Admittedly, petitioner was not awarded any punishment for withholding the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, therefore, petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to calculate and make payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period he remained under suspension at the earliest preferably within 90 days from today.