Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3464 (ALL)

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-10-18

NARAYAN SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Shri Narayan Shukla,J. Heard Mr.R.C.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner is presently working as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary Section of a recognized intermediate college, namely, Sarvodaya Inter College, Garah Bankata Station, Deoria (for short, "the Institution"). The Institution receives grant-in-aid from the State Government and is governed under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (U.P. Act No. II of 1921) and the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971). The Institution has an attached Primary Section which is on the grant-in-aid list. The petitioner along with other teachers had claimed that they were validly appointed teachers but their salary was not paid. Aggrieved by the said decision they have preferred a writ petition i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40931 of 2006 which was allowed on 15th February, 2008 and the matter was remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools to consider the matter afresh. The District Inspector of Schools, after furnishing opportunity to all the parties, came to hold that the appointment of the petitioners therein was valid and they are entitled for the salary from the date of order of the District Inspector of Schools viz. 04th October, 2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that once his initial appointment dated 16th December, 1995 has been held to be valid and since then he has been continuously working, he is entitled for the salary from 16th December, 1995 till the decision of the District Inspector of Schools dated 04th October, 2011. Learned Senior Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to an order passed by the Joint Director of Education, VIIth Region, Gorakhpur dated 19th July, 2014 whereby he has exempted the petitioner from training. In the said order the Joint Director has referred the initial date of appointment of the petitioner as 16th December, 1995. It is urged by the learned Senior Advocate that the Joint Director of Education has accepted the initial date of the petitioner 16th December, 1995 as valid, therefore, there is no justifiable reason denying the petitioner's salary from 1995 to 2010. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is urged by the learned Senior Advocate that the Joint Director of Education has accepted the initial date of the petitioner 16th December, 1995 as valid, therefore, there is no justifiable reason denying the petitioner's salary from 1995 to 2010. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the Joint Director of Education to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to say that this Court has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the case. The Joint Director of Education shall pass the order independently and in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.