Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3791 (ALL)

Veer Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-11-24

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in a Junior High School, Indira Gandhi Vidyalaya Junior High School, District Raebareli. He has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents for payment of his salary. 2. The essential facts are that Indira Gandhi Vidyalaya Junior High School, Kahnijar, Raebareli (for short, the "institution") is a recognised institution. It was brought on the grant-in-aid in the year 2006. It is stated that a permanent teacher, namely, Bansh Bahadur Singh proceeded on long leave, therefore, the Committee of Management of the institution sought permission from the fourth respondent to advertise the said post. Accordingly, the post was advertised in Lucknow Mail daily newspaper. It is further stated that in the Selection Committee the Observer of the District Basic Education Officer was present. The petitioner made an application pursuant to the said advertisement and faced the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner and he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the institution. The District Basic Education Officer has granted approval to the petitioner's appointment. A copy of the approval order is on the record. 3. It is further averred in the writ petition that the permanent teacher, who had proceeded on leave, resigned on 22nd April, 1998, thus the petitioner's status was changed and he was appointed on permanent basis and was put on probation for a period of one year. It is stated that all those documents pertaining to the said selection were duly sent to the office of the District Basic Education Officer. 4. Later, the institution was brought on the grant-in-aid list in the year 2006 and the Management was required to send M.R. list. In the M.R. list petitioner's name figures among the working Assistant Teachers of the institution. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that he was duly appointed, his salary has not been paid from the salary payment account. Hence, he has instituted this writ petition for the direction, as noted above, upon the respondents. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's appointment was made after following the procedure; an advertisement was made, Selection Committee was constituted, wherein Observer of the District Basic Education Officer was present and thereafter approval was granted. Hence, he has instituted this writ petition for the direction, as noted above, upon the respondents. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's appointment was made after following the procedure; an advertisement was made, Selection Committee was constituted, wherein Observer of the District Basic Education Officer was present and thereafter approval was granted. It is also contended that the approval letter itself mentions for the continuance of the petitioner in case the contingency demands. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed, however, the fact that the petitioner's initial appointment was approved by the District Basic Education Officer has not been denied. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that initial appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the relevant rules. It has also been submitted that the resignation of Sri Bansh Bahadur Singh was not approved, thus the appointment of the petitioner is illegal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The fact that the petitioner's appointment was made with the approval of the District Basic Education Officer has not been denied in the counter affidavit. While entertaining the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 07th May, 2013 for the payment of salary of the petitioner. From the counter affidavit and the material available on the record, I am prima facie satisfied that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher in the institution and stood retired on 31st March, 2016. Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer, submits that the matter has been referred to the Director of Education (Basic), U.P.. 10. Having due regard to the facts of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the Director of Education (Basic), Govt. of U.P., to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The Director of Education (Basic) shall pay regard to the fact that the petitioner is a retired teacher, hence there should not be any delay in taking decision. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.