Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1571 (ALL)

Surya Lekha Verma v. State Of U. P.

2022-09-27

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.B. Yadav, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent nos.5 and 6. 2. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to be issued to the respondents to pay the pension and other post retiral benefits such as Gratuity, Provident Fund, salary of the petitioner from 08.09.2010 to 31.03.2017 and fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of pay scale to which the petitioner is entitled to get on 31.03.2017 along with interest of 12% per annum calculated on the quarterly compound basis on all outstanding dues. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 29.03.1985 in Junior High School, Midhakur-II, Block Bichpuri, Agra and she was given promotional pay scale after a lapse of ten years on 27.05.1995. She was promoted on 12.07.2007 as Head Mistress in Junior High School, Midhakur where she was working as Assistant Teacher. She joined as Head Mistress on 17.07.2007 and continued to work as such. It so happened that one Assistant Teacher, Abha Jain stopped coming to the institution since 15.01.2009. She had influence over the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari pressurized the petitioner to mark her attendance so that her salary bill may be prepared accordingly. When the petitioner did not oblige, she was transferred on 08.09.2010 from Junior High School, Midhakur to Anguthi in the same Block Bichpuri in District Agra. In the transfer order dated 08.09.2010, reference was made to some report submitted by the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari with regard to the petitioner being an ill-tempered employee prone to making false allegations. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of averment made on oath in the writ petition that on 09.09.2010 i.e. only a day after, the petitioner was transferred, the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari came to the Junior High School at Midhakur so that he could serve the transfer order personally on the petitioner and ensure her releiving. On the very same day i.e. 09.09.2010, several teachers of the institution barged into the petitioner's office and beat her up and her office was set on fire and all the registers were burnt down and the room was locked from the outside due to which the petitioner out of suffocation, lost her consciousness. She was rushed to hospital. The petitioner remained in hospital for a long time. In the meantime, the daughter of the petitioner complained to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari regarding the aforesaid incident. Then the Assistant Basic Siksha Adhikari to save himself alleged that the petitioner had locked herself up on her own and set the registers on fire in order to avoid receiving the transfer order dated 08.09.2010 which was sought to be served upon her personally by the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bichpuri. The respondents also lodged FIR against the petitioner on 11.09.2010 on false allegations under Section 477-A IPC in Case Crime No.321 of 2010. The petitioner was enlarged on bail. 4. The petitioner remained under medical treatment however, and was able to lodge FIR only on 11.11.2010 in Case Crime No.321A of 2010 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 506, 341, 342, 352, 435, 477-A IPC at Police Station Malpura, District Agra but a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer which is still under consideration before the Trial Court. The petitioner has repeatedly sent applications for sanctioning of medical leave and also for permitting her to join, after recovering her health and fitness certificate being given by the doctors on 29.08.2011. Details of the applications made by the petitioners from September, 2011 till 08.05.2015, have been mentioned in paragraph 13 to 15 of the writ petition. She was ultimately issued joining order on 07.05.2015 which was only served upon her on 20.05.2015 asking her to join within three days. The petitioner was allowed to join at Junior High School, Anguthi, Block Bichpuri i.e. the transferred place of posting but May and June being time for summer vacation, the school in question remained closed. It reopened on 01.07.2015 and the petitioner joined only thereafter. However, the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Basic Shiksha Adhikari continued to harass her. As a result, health of the petitioner again deteriorated and she went on medical leave w.e.f. 13.07.2015 and was able to join duty only on 16.01.2017. 5. The petitioner retired on 31.03.2017. It reopened on 01.07.2015 and the petitioner joined only thereafter. However, the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Basic Shiksha Adhikari continued to harass her. As a result, health of the petitioner again deteriorated and she went on medical leave w.e.f. 13.07.2015 and was able to join duty only on 16.01.2017. 5. The petitioner retired on 31.03.2017. The petitioner deposited in original the copies of the documents required by the department for finalization of her pension duly signed by her and as informed to her by the Clerk of the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. A copy of the pension papers that were required by the Clerk of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari arrayed as respondent no.8 in the writ petition, have been filed as Annexure 20 to the writ petition. In paragraph 21, 22 and 23 of the writ petition, the petitioner has made allegations that when no action was taken for payment of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 09.09.2010 to 31.03.2017 and payment of her post retiral benefits, the petitioner had moved a complaint at the Chief Minister's Grievance Redressal Forum and received a letter on 25.05.2018 saying that she had not completed the formalities for her pension papers to be finalized. She sent a letter in reply saying clearly that she had given each and every papers duly signed as per the instructions of the respondent no.8, and that she again sent three set of papers duly signed by her for pension to be finalized and paid to her. 6. The petitioner received a letter dated 30.06.2018 by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari asking her to complete formalities. The petitioner replied on 04.07.2018 categorically stating that bribe was being demanded from her to the extent of 5% of the total amount payable to her by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari through their Clerk Sri Anil and since she was not accepting their demand, all kinds of false grounds were being raised regarding formalities not being completed. 7. The petitioner submitted another representation on 04.09.2018 categorically bringing to the notice of the Deputy Director that blatant illegalities committed by the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and made specific allegations against the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Clerk Sri Anil Kumar, the respondent no.8. 7. The petitioner submitted another representation on 04.09.2018 categorically bringing to the notice of the Deputy Director that blatant illegalities committed by the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and made specific allegations against the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Clerk Sri Anil Kumar, the respondent no.8. The petitioner has not received any pension or any kind of other retiral dues till the time of filing of the writ petition. 8. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition was filed on 05.05.2022 and till 05.05.2022, the petitioner has not been paid a single penny although she retired on 31.03.2017. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos.5 and 6, it has been stated that in compliance of the interim order granted by this Court, provisional pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner by order dated 24.06.2022 by the respondent no.6. The respondent no.6 has also submitted a compliance report to the respondent no.5 that a total amount of Rs.21,08,281/-has been paid to the petitioner as arrears of provisional pension and proceedings have been initiated for payment of GPF, Group Insurance and other dues. 10. The contents of the writ petition insofar as they relate to the petitioner being locked up in the office and the office room/registers being set on fire by the teachers, has been denied on the basis of report submitted by the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari/Block Education Officer that when he went to serve the order of transfer on the petitioner, she refused to take it and she locked herself up on her own and set fire to the office records. It was only with the intervention of the students, villagers and police that she was saved. 11. The contents of paragraph 13 and 14 of the writ petition have not been denied but it has been stated that the order of transfer was made on administrative grounds to a vacant post of Head Mistress in Junior High School at Anguthi and instead of joining at her transferred place of posting, the petitioner submitted an undated application along with medical certificate dated 10.09.2010 received in the office of the respondent no.5 on 07.10.2010 saying that she could not join duty as she was ill. The medical certificate and the fitness certificate attached with the application made by the petitioner, were found invalid as they mentioned date of treatment from 06.06.2011 to 29.08.2011. 12. In reply to the contents of the paragraph 17 of the writ petition, it has only been admitted that the petitioner did not join duty w.e.f. 14.07.2015 to 15.07.2015 as she was on medical leave. With regard to the allegations against Sri Anil Kumar, Clerk in the office of the Block Education Officer/Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari, it has been submitted that the respondent no.8 had filed a notarized affidavit on 10.08.2018 before the respondent no.5 mentioning that no pension papers had been submitted by the petitioner in the office. The contents of other paragraphs of the writ petition have also been denied and it has been submitted that after retirement on 31.03.2017, in spite of repeated directions of the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari as well as the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Agra, the petitioner did not complete the formalities for pension/GPF/Insurance to be released and that Sri Anil Kumar, Clerk in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bichpuri had mentioned in the notarized affidavit dated 10.08.2018 that no pension papers were ever submitted by the petitioner. With regard to the arrears of salary for the period of absence from 10.09.2010 to 30.06.2015, it has been submitted that medical leave has not been sanctioned to her and her attendance has not been verified therefore, her salary cannot be paid for the aforesaid period of absence. 13. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, she has reiterated the contents of the writ petition and has also asserted that the pension of the petitioner has wrongly been calculated at Rs.28,845/-. At the time when the petitioner retired in March 2017, the 7the Pay Commission pay scales were applicable and her pension should have been given in revised pay scale. It has further been reiterated that the petitioner was never subjected to any disciplinary proceedings for alleged unauthorized absence or alleged act of setting fire at the office records. Photocopies of several newspapers items have been filed as annexures saying that the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari Satyendra Kumar and the then Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari Udam Shankar Saxena were found guilty of several irregularities in other schools also in the District Agra. Photocopies of several newspapers items have been filed as annexures saying that the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari Satyendra Kumar and the then Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari Udam Shankar Saxena were found guilty of several irregularities in other schools also in the District Agra. It has been again reiterated that because of the high handedness of the respondents, the petitioner became ill and could not join duty, when she became well, she repeatedly submitted applications along with fitness certificate and prescriptions relating to her treatment and prayed to be allowed to join but she has not been allowed to join without any reason till 2015. 14. The matter was heard by this Court yesterday and this Court had prima facie expressed an opinion that the petitioner was being unnecessarily harassed and that costs would be imposed in case it is found that there is a deliberate delay in payment of her dues. 15. Today when the matter was taken up, Sri R.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 and 6 has produced before this Court a written instructions dated 26.09.2022 sent by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Agra saying that in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, provisional pension had been released to the petitioner and the arrears of provisional pension amounting to Rs.21,08,281/-had been paid in the account of the petitioner. By a letter dated 06.07.2022, GPF has also been sanctioned and a payment of Rs.12,98,892/-has been made in the petitioner's bank account also. Since the petitioner had retired on attaining the age of 62 years, she was not entitled to any gratuity as per the relevant Government Orders and Circulars and that her Group Insurance papers have been submitted to the appropriate Authority by letter dated 30.06.2022. 16. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.B. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.5 and 6, and having gone through the various annexures filed with the writ petition, namely, Annexure 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17 of the writ petition, this Court finds that the petitioner has been writing repeatedly to the respondent nos.5 and 6 regarding her illness and also submitted medical certificates and certificate of fitness. She had also repeatedly made applications to be permitted to join duty on getting well however, no orders have been passed thereon by the respondent nos.5 and 6. She had also repeatedly made applications to be permitted to join duty on getting well however, no orders have been passed thereon by the respondent nos.5 and 6. The petitioner's joining was allowed only w.e.f. 01.07.2015. When she went on medical leave on 13.07.2015 and submitted medical certificate and fitness certificate, no intimation was ever sent to her that her application for medical leave has been rejected by the Competent Authority on the ground of invalidity of the certificate submitted by her. No notice was ever issued to her to appear before the Medical Board constituted by the CMO to certify her illness/treatment/fitness, whatsoever. She was also not issued any letter in reply to her repeated applications to let her join duty after she was got well. 17. The petitioner had rendered continuous service from 1985 onwards till 2010. It is not the case of the respondents that after rendering several years of service, the petitioner was not entitled to any Medical Leave or Earned Leave or any kind of leave altogether. Her absence should have been regularized in view of the relevant Circulars/Government Orders/Subsidiary Rules in the Financial Handbook which provide for regularization of absence of a permanent employee. No such effort was made at all by the respondent nos.5 and 6. The petitioner was made to run from pillar to post and unnecessarily harassed. The letters that have written by her to the Divisional Director and to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari have been read out in Court by learned counsel for the petitioner extensively. This Court finds that such letters mentioned in details the untold sufferings that the petitioner had to undergo. The payments of provisional pension and other dues to the petitioner have been made only after filing of the contempt petition. If no formalities had been completed by the petitioner as alleged in the counter affidavit then how and why such payments were made after the petitioner approached this Court, has not been explained by the respondents. 18. The petitioner has made specific allegations against the respondent nos.7 and 8 in the writ petition and also arrayed them as respondents. The Court had issued notices to them. Office has submitted a service report saying that service has been confirmed upon them. Yet the respondent nos.7 and 8 have chosen not to file any counter affidavit. 19. 18. The petitioner has made specific allegations against the respondent nos.7 and 8 in the writ petition and also arrayed them as respondents. The Court had issued notices to them. Office has submitted a service report saying that service has been confirmed upon them. Yet the respondent nos.7 and 8 have chosen not to file any counter affidavit. 19. This Court having considered the pleadings and arguments raised, finds unnecessary and undue harassment of the petitioner at the hands of the respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 8. 20. This writ petition is allowed insofar as the petitioner's prayer for release of Provident Fund, Group Insurance, Regular Pension on the basis of pay scale to which she was entitled to get on 31.03.2017 is concerned. 21. With regard to prayer for grant of arrears of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 08.09.2010 to 31.03.2017, a direction is issued to the respondent nos.5 and 6 to make admissible all leave that is admissible to a teacher in a Government School after rendering 25 years of service, and to regularize her absence and in case her period of absence is more than the leave that is admissible to her, the same shall be regularized as leave without pay. Appropriate orders be passed in this regard within a period of two months from the date a production of a copy of this order is produced before the respondent nos.5 and 6. 22. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 9% on all her dues which had been withheld for no reason by the respondent nos.5 and 6, from the date such dues became admissible to be paid till the date of actual payment. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs.2,00,000/-which shall be paid by the respondent nos.1 to 5 with liberty to them to realize the amount so paid as costs from the respondent nos.7 and 8 who were responsible for unnecessary harassment of the petitioner. 23. All the dues as aforesaid along with costs shall be paid to the petitioner within two months from receipt of copy of this order. 24. 23. All the dues as aforesaid along with costs shall be paid to the petitioner within two months from receipt of copy of this order. 24. With regard to the question of payment of gratuity, this Court has not gone into the entitlement as there is a serious dispute being raised by Sri R.B. Yadav while reference has been made to the several Government Orders saying that gratuity is not payable to the teacher who retired at the age of 62 years. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition to press her prayer for release of gratuity to her.