Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1453 (ALL)

Rajedndra Prasad Inter College v. Shambhu Rao

2025-12-18

AJIT KUMAR, SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI

body2025
JUDGMENT : Swarupama Chaturvedi, J. Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Applications. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Cause shown for delay in filing the appeals is sufficient. 3. Delay in filing the appeals is condoned. 3. Delay condonation application is allowed. Order on Appeal 1. Heard Sri K. K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Grijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2 . The appellant in Special Appeal Defective No.927 of 2025 has approached this Court against the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 in Writ A No.1018 of 2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has simply directed to put up the case after the decision of the Special Appeal Defective No.656 of 2023 filed by the Committee of Management. In connected appeal, which is Special Appeal Defective No.656 of 2023, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.12.2022 in Writ A No.10356 of 2022 wherein the petition filed by the petitioner Shambhu Rao was allowed with all consequential benefits. 3. The controversy involved in both special appeals arises out of the same set of facts and relates to the inter se rights of the parties concerning the judgment rendered in Writ A No.10356 of 2022. Since the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 passed in Writ A No.1018 of 2025 is wholly dependent upon the outcome of Special Appeal Defective No.656 of 2023, and both appeals involve overlapping issues of law and fact, we consider it appropriate to hear them together and decide by a common order. Since the main challenge is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of Shambhu Rao and the second appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge deferring the matter of interest and payment of retirement dues to Shambhu Rao, we take Special Appeal Defective No.- 656 of 2023 as leading appeal. 4. The facts giving rise to these special appeals are that the school was initially established as a Junior High School, catering to classes VI to VIII, and recognized under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, which falls within the ambit of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978. 4. The facts giving rise to these special appeals are that the school was initially established as a Junior High School, catering to classes VI to VIII, and recognized under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, which falls within the ambit of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978. Pursuant to an order dated 13.11.1986 issued by the Assistant Director, Basic Education, Seventh Region, Gorakhpur, three posts of Assistant Teacher were created at the Junior High School level, against which Shambhu Rao along with two more persons, got selected for the appointment. While the appointments of Ram Naresh Tripathi as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) and Deen Bandhu Rao as Assistant Teacher, Urdu (Untrained Trade), were duly approved by the District Basic Education Officer, the appointment of the Shambhu Rao was deferred on the ground that his B.Ed. degree from Maithili University, Darbhanga, Bihar, was not recognized. 5. Subsequently, Shambhu Rao obtained diploma of Vyayam Ratna, equivalent to D.P.Ed., recognized by the Government order dated 18.11.1982, from Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir, Vyayam College, Jhansi, in 1988, following which, Shambhu Rao was appointed to a vacant post of Assistant Teacher. The Manager of the Committee of Management forwarded the relevant records to the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, by letter dated 02.03.1989, and the appointment was approved on 03.03.1989. Accordingly, the Manager of the Committee of Management issued the appointment order to Shambhu Rao, who joined the post and received the salary admissible to an Assistant Teacher until his retirement on 31.03.2022 upon attaining the age of superannuation. 6. Meanwhile, on 23.12.2020, the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar, issued a notice to the Manager/Principal of the institution calling upon them to submit duly verified copies of the educational certificates of the Shambhu Rao. The said notice was issued in compliance with the direction of the District Magistrate, Kushinagar, contained in the order dated 05.12.2020, whereby verification of the Shambhu Rao’s educational qualifications was ordered on the basis of a complaint dated 27.11.2020 made by one Rajesh Kumar Singh. 7. Thereafter, by order dated 01.03.2021, the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar, directed stoppage of the petitioner’s salary pending enquiry on the allegation that the petitioner’s B.Ed. certificate was forged. 7. Thereafter, by order dated 01.03.2021, the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar, directed stoppage of the petitioner’s salary pending enquiry on the allegation that the petitioner’s B.Ed. certificate was forged. Aggrieved thereby, Shambhu Rao challenged the said order by filing Writ-A No.10319 of 2021, wherein this Court, by order dated 09.09.2021, stayed the operation of the impugned order in that petition and directed payment of salary to the petitioner and during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.03.2022. 8. Pursuant to the order dated 09.09.2021, the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar, issued a notice to the Manager of the institution calling upon him to produce the original records relating to the appointment of the petitioner. Upon consideration of the response of the Management, the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar, passed the order dated 24.05.2022, whereby the earlier approval order dated 03.03.1989 was withdrawn, which forms the subject matter of challenge in the Writ-A No. 10356 of 2022 filed before this Court and the same got allowed in favour of Shambhu Rao. Order passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 10356 of 2022 is under challenge by the management in the connected special appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the lead special appeal submits that despite repeated reminders for compliance of the judgment dated 20.12.2022 passed in Writ-A No.10356 of 2022, the respondent authorities failed to release the petitioner’s retiral dues, including pension and G.P.F., compelling him to file Contempt Application No.8825 of 2023, consequently Rs. 29,30,443/- was paid to the petitioner in May, 2025, afterwards the contempt application was disposed of. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is matter of fact that the petitioner had superannuated on 31.03.2022 and the retiral benefits were released belatedly on 22.04.2025 and 15.05.2025, therefore, the petitioner claimed interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the delayed payment of G.P.F. as well as on arrears of pension and salary amounting to Rs. 21,90,776/- and Rs. 2,14,048/- respectively, and accordingly filed Writ-A No.10108 of 2025, however, by the impugned order dated 25.08.2025, the learned Single Judge adjourned the matter with observation that the Special Appeal No.656 of 2023 filed by the Committee of Management was pending while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court after disposal of the special appeal filed by the management. 2,14,048/- respectively, and accordingly filed Writ-A No.10108 of 2025, however, by the impugned order dated 25.08.2025, the learned Single Judge adjourned the matter with observation that the Special Appeal No.656 of 2023 filed by the Committee of Management was pending while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court after disposal of the special appeal filed by the management. 11. Learned Senior Counsel contend that Shambhu Rao had already superannuated on 31.03.2022 and, therefore, the impugned order withdrawing the approval of his appointment, having been passed after his retirement, is per se illegal and without application of mind. He further contends that the issue relating to the petitioner’s educational qualification was required to be examined, if at all, at the time of his initial appointment, and reopening the same after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about 33 years is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel further argued that the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar, proceeded to pass the impugned order on the premise that neither B.Ed. nor D.P.Ed. was the requisite qualification at the relevant time. 12. Per contra, learned Counsel representing the State Respondents and learned counsel for the management have tried to justify the action taken by authorities while contending that the Shambhu Rao did not possess the requisite qualification to hold the post and as such there is no error as illegality in the order which was impugned in the writ petition filed by Shambhu Rao. Learned counsel appearing for the management contends that the learned single has also erred in law in allowing the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2020 and failed to appreciate this fact that the educational authorities including the appellant was having the liberty to proceed against the respondent no.1 even after his retirement as his appointment was found to be the illegal and the respondent no. 1 has found to have been involved in commission of a fraud in obtaining his appointment and also because of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings were already commenced even prior to the retirement of the respondent no. 1 and as such there is no impediment in taking action against the respondent no. 1 even after his retirement. 13. 1 has found to have been involved in commission of a fraud in obtaining his appointment and also because of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings were already commenced even prior to the retirement of the respondent no. 1 and as such there is no impediment in taking action against the respondent no. 1 even after his retirement. 13. After thoughtful consideration the issue to be decided in these special appeals is that whether the impugned order dated 24.05.2022, whereby approval of the petitioner’s appointment was withdrawn after his superannuation on 31.03.2022, is legally sustainable, and whether the same has any effect on retiral benefits, which is the outcome of the services rendered by the employee, which the Shambhu Rao has already rendered. 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner got retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2022. The impugned order withdrawing approval of his appointment was passed thereafter, on 24.05.2022. Once an employee has superannuated, the employer retains no authority to reopen or unsettle the validity of the appointment, except in cases involving fraud or misrepresentation as in our considered view contract of employment ends with retirement of employee and then employer and employee relationship ends. In the present case, there is neither any allegation nor any finding that the petitioner had secured approval of his appointment by producing forged or fabricated documents. In the absence of such allegation, the post-retirement exercise undertaken by the District Basic Education Officer is clearly without authority of law. 15. It is also matter of fact that Shambhu Rao’s appointment was duly approved on 03.03.1989 and remained operative for more than three decades, during which period Shambhu Rao continuously discharged his duties and was paid salary from the State exchequer. The issue relating to educational qualification, if at all, was required to be examined at the time of initial appointment or approval. Reopening the same after a lapse of about 33 years, particularly after the petitioner’s retirement, is ex-facie arbitrary, unreasonable and cannot be justified as per established principles of certainty and finality in administrative action. 16. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondent-State and the management, who is appellant in connected special appeal, that neither B.Ed. nor D.P.Ed. Reopening the same after a lapse of about 33 years, particularly after the petitioner’s retirement, is ex-facie arbitrary, unreasonable and cannot be justified as per established principles of certainty and finality in administrative action. 16. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondent-State and the management, who is appellant in connected special appeal, that neither B.Ed. nor D.P.Ed. was the requisite qualification at the relevant time does not improve their case, inasmuch as the approval order was consciously granted by the competent authority and was never questioned for decades. Administrative authorities cannot be permitted to undo settled rights after decades of actual service provided by an employee, more so when the employee has got retired. 17. As per legal principles, the order dated 24.05.2022 demonstrates manifest arbitrariness and cannot be sustained in law and therefore the order granting relief to the Shambhu Rao in writ petition is justified. The withdrawal of approval at such a belated stage is illegal and consequently the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from the subsisting approval of his appointment, including retiral dues in accordance with law and therefore the order of this court in contempt application is also well justified. 18 . In M.S. Mudhol And Anr. vs S.D. Halegkar And Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 591 , the issue was related to the eligibility to occupy the post of the Principal of a Senior Secondary School, which was raised after years of appointment. In this case the Supreme Court held that: “Whatever may be the reasons which were responsible for the non-discovery of the want of qualifications of the 1st respondent for a long time, the fact remains that the Court was moved in the matter after a long lapse of about 9 years. The post of the Principal in a private school though aided, is not of such sensitive public importance that the Court should find itself impelled to interfere with the appointment by a writ of quo warranto even assuming that such a writ is maintainable. This is particularly so when the incumbent has been discharging his functions continuously for over a long period of 9 years when the court was moved and today about 13 years have elapsed. The infraction of the statutory rule regarding the qualifications of the incumbent pointed out in the present case is also not that grave taking into consideration all other relevant facts. The infraction of the statutory rule regarding the qualifications of the incumbent pointed out in the present case is also not that grave taking into consideration all other relevant facts. In the circumstances, we deem it unnecessary to go into the question as to whether a writ of quo warranto would lie in the present case or not, and further whether mere laches would disentitle the petitioners to such a writ.” 19 . In The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs Smt Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari, 2021 INSC 68 , the State Government clarified before Supreme Court in the appeal that it was restricting its challenge only to the component of interest which had been imposed by the judgment and order of the High Court Supreme Court has held that: “14 The direction for the payment of the deferred portions of the salaries and pensions is unexceptionable. Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees and are payable in accordance with law. Likewise, it is well settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State. The State Government has complied with the directions of this Court for the payment of the outstanding dues in two tranches. Insofar as the interest is concerned, we are of the view that the rate of 12% per annum which has been fixed by the High Court should be suitably scaled down. While learned counsel for the respondents submits that the award of interest was on account of the action of the Government which was contrary to law, we are of the view that the payment of interest cannot be used as a means to penalize the State Government. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Government which has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate.” 20. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Government which has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate.” 20. Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) to the facts of the present case, it is evident that Shambhu Rao’s retiral benefits, including pension, G.P.F., and other dues, constitute a rightful entitlement for services rendered by him over more than three decades. The payment of such dues is mandated by law and the applicable service rules and regulations. The delay in releasing these amounts from 31.03.2022 until 22.04.2025 and 15.05.2025, despite repeated reminders and contempt proceedings, clearly caused financial prejudice to Shambhu Rao. It is well-settled legal principle that delays in payment of salary or pensionary dues, must be paid with interest at an appropriate rate to compensate the employee for the loss caused by such delay. Applying this principle, Shambhu Rao is entitled to receive interest at the rate of six percent per annum on all delayed retiral benefits from their respective due dates until actual payment. 21 . In view of the foregoing discussions and consequential findings arrived by us as above, Special Appeal Defective No.- 656 of 2023 is hereby dismissed. 22 . Since we have upheld the judgment of learned Single Judge challenge in this appeal, Shambhu Rao’s appointment and continuance in service and ultimate retirement deserves to be awarded with all post retirement benefits and for any delay in disbursement of the same, also deserves to be visited with interest which we assess to be at the rate of 6%. 23 . Accordingly, Special Appeal Defective No.- 927 of 2025 along with writ petition being Writ - A No.- 10356 of 2022, the order passed therein dated 20.12.2022 was challenged, stands disposed of with aforesaid directions. 24. All pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.