Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1291 (ALL)

Harijan Parimary Pathshala v. State of U. P.

2022-08-16

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

body2022
JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure-26) to the writ petition passed by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of U.P. whereby refusing to accord financial approval for the petitioners' school to be included in the recurrent grant-in-aid list in the absence of any policy/arrangement existing for taking new schools run by the private management in the recurrent grant list. However, the petitioners have been given liberty to apply as per prescribed procedure under scheme floated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India under which grants are being made to residential/ non-residential schools through voluntary organizations. 2. Shri Adarsh Bhushan, leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner Committee of Management is running an Institution providing primary education from 1st to 5th classes. The permanent recognition to the petitioners' Institution was granted on 5.2.1990. The Institution is governed by Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P. The Social Welfare Department has issued a Government Order dated 31.3.1994 regarding grant and release of grant-in-aid to basic institutions governed by the Social Welfare Department. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ Petition (C) No. 50838 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by directing the authority concerned to take an appropriate decision regarding bringing the petitioners' Institution under the grant-in-aid. The claim came to be rejected by the State Government vide order dated 22.2.2011 on the ground that the scheme of the State itself had been discontinued w.e.f. 5.10.2006. The rejection order dated 22.12.2011 was challenged by means of Writ Petition (C) No. 31825 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 3.10.2016 allowed the writ petition, set aside the order rejecting the claim dated 22.12.2011 and directed the State Government to examine the petitioners' claim for being taken on the list of aid keeping in view the observations made by the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Others vs. Pawan Kumar Dwivedi and Others, 2014 (9) SCC 692 as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in Paripurna Nand Tripathi and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, Special Appeal Defective No. 994 of 2014. 3. The State Government in compliance of the order of this Court dated 3.10.2016 passed an order dated 18.5.2017 taking the petitioners' Institution in grant-in-aid. 3. The State Government in compliance of the order of this Court dated 3.10.2016 passed an order dated 18.5.2017 taking the petitioners' Institution in grant-in-aid. However, in spite of the order dated 18.5.2017 passed in favour of the petitioners the grants were not released in favour of the petitioners in spite of the fact that the petitioners complied with all the formalities required from it. The petitioners were compelled to approach this Court yet again by means of Writ Petition (A) No. 14997 of 2019 which too was disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2019 requiring the authority concerned to pass final order for payment of salary of teachers taking into consideration the letters dated 3.5.2019 and 10.5.2019. It was further directed that in case there is any legal impediment, the authority concerned shall pass a reasoned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order dated 3.10.2016 passed in Writ (C) No. 31825 of 2015, the State Government had filed SLP (Civil) Diary No. 1252 of 2021 before the Apex Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2021 and as such, the order dated 3.10.2016 setting aside the rejection of the claim of the petitioners to be brought under the grant-in-aid having been upheld, it was incumbent upon the State Government to accord financial approval. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the State Government is adopting a pick and choose policy in taking the institutions under grant-in-aid and the action is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has invited attention of the Court to orders dated 21.11.2019 and 16.10.2020 filed as Annexure 30 and 31 to the writ petition by which the State Government has taken institution in grant-in-aid which are similarly circumstanced and governed by Social Welfare Department. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents has tried to justify the impugned order by submitting that in the absence of any existing policy of the State Government to take new schools run by private management and include them in the recurrent grant list, the impugned order is perfectly justified. However, he is unable to refute the argument that similarly circumstanced institutions have been taken under the grant-in-aid as is evident from the orders dated 21.11.2019 and 16.10.2020 which are on record. 6. However, he is unable to refute the argument that similarly circumstanced institutions have been taken under the grant-in-aid as is evident from the orders dated 21.11.2019 and 16.10.2020 which are on record. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, the Court finds that the rejection of the claim of the petitioners in the facts and circumstances is totally unwarranted. The case of the petitioners is not to be treated as a new case. The State Government has vide order dated 18.5.2017 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) already taken a decision to take the petitioners' Institution under grant-in-aid. The said order is very much in existence and has not been rescinded. Admittedly, vide orders dated 21.11.2019 and 16.10.2020 (Annexure 30 and 31), the State Government has taken institutions in grant-in-aid which are similarly circumstanced as the petitioners' institution and governed by the Social Welfare Department. There is no reason for the State Government to discriminate against the petitioners and refuse the financial approval having granted the administrative approval as far back as on 18.5.2017. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the State Government (Annexure 26 to the writ petition) is set aside. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to accord financial approval and release the grant for payment of salary to the teaching and non teaching staff of the petitioners' institution by passing appropriate orders in this regard within a period of 45 days from service of certified copy of the orders.