Hariraj Singh Gaahlot v. State of U.P. and Others

Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10494 of 2006 Petitioner :- Hariraj Singh Gaahlot Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Ashok Khare,Pradeep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Surendra Prasad Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶1Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶2Pursuant to the previous order of this Court dated 21.07.2023, notices were issued to the respondent no.5. Office report indicates that notice has been delivered upon respondent no.5.

¶3No one has put in appearance on behalf of the said respondent and, therefore, the Court proceeds to finally decide the writ petition, particularly in view of the fact that respondent no.5 being Committee of Management of the Institution, recently impleaded, has throughout supported the cause of the petitioner.

¶4The petitioner was working as Principal in the respondent no.5-Intermediate Institution and on account of certain alleged financial irregularities, he was suspended by order dated 29.11.2005. Thereafter, enquiry report was submitted and taking into consideration the said report and proceedings, Resolution was passed by the Committee of Management in the meeting dated 15.06.2008 to the following effect:- "संयु्ሹ शि्ቌा नि देक ्ቌादः मण्डल मुरादाबाद े अप ी जॉच में मा्ቔ थोड़ी सी नि#्ቈीय अनि यनिमतता मा ी थी। उस नि#्ቈीय अनि यनिमतता को दूर कर े ए#ं अनि यनिमता को दूर कर े के लिलए्ቚ बन्धक महोदय के आदेा ुपाल में पेड़ो की नि#्ቅी से सम्ब቏ኌन्धत ध राशि का ्ቚयोग नि#्ቕालय की चाहर निद#ारी में कर े के उपरान्त भी उ्ሹ ध राशि रू० 23350-00 (तेईस हाजर ती

सौ पचास रू० मा्ቔ) नि#्ቕालय निहत में नि#्ቕालय खाता सं० 4730 (पंजाब े ल बैंक धामपुर) में जमा कर रसीद सं० 84 निद ांक 29.4.2008 को नि#्ቕालय काया=लय में उपलब्ध करा निदया है। अतः अत इ के ऊपर संयु्ሹ शि्ቌा नि देक ्ቛारा लगाये गये आरोप का भी नि स्तारण हो चुका है। इसलिलए जब ्ቦ ी हरिरराज िሺसह गहलौत को नि लम्ब तितशिथ (29.11.2005) से तत्काली #ेत ्ቅ म ए#ं अन्य भ्ቈो पर स#ेत बहाल कर निदया जाए। ्ቚ स्ता# को स#=सम्मतित से पारिरत कर निदया गया।"

¶5It is, therefore, contended that since, once the Educational Authorities directed reinstatement of the petitioner and revocation of the suspension order, though there was no hurdle in the petitioner's reinstatement and the Manager of the Institution also wrote a letter dated 16.06.2008 to the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor for reinstatement of the petitioner, specifically, mentioning that the petitioner was going to retire after 14 days i.e. 30.06.2008, no decision was taken by the District Inspector of Schools and, therefore, the petitioner could not join the Institution before his superannuation.

¶6The writ petition though was filed challenging the suspension order, however, recently, it has been amended incorporating the facts with respect to retirement of the petitioner and certain reliefs have been added for making payment of post-retiral benefits.

¶7Learned Standing Counsel by referring to the counter affidavit has referred to various proceedings held against the petitioner, in relation to the allegations levelled against him and submits that since the petitioner was involved in the financial irregularities, he was rightly suspended.

¶8Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the proceedings ultimately culminated into revocation of suspension and, once, there is nothing on record to indicate that there was any obstruction in the joining of the petitioner pursuant to the Resolution of the Committee of Management dated 15.06.2008, merely because on account of lapses on the part of the State-Authorities, formal letter of joining could not be issued in between 15.06.2008 and 30.06.2008 and the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation retired from the post, withholding of the post-retiral benefits would be injustice to the petitioner.

¶9The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed off directing the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor (respondent no.2) to call upon Committee of Management of the Institution as well as the petitioner and take a decision for release of post-retiral benefits to the petitioner pursuant to the Resolution of the Committee of Management and letter of the Manager.

¶10The decision shall be taken positively on or before 31.01.2024 after verifying the relevant records provided a certified copy of this order is produced before the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor (respondent no.2) alongwith a fresh application mentioning all the benefits which have been claimed by means of this petition within a period of three weeks from today. Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Jyotsana High Court of Judicature at Allahabad