Ajeet Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thorugh Its Secy.Secondary Edu.Lucknow and Ors

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6188 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ajeet Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thorugh Its Secy.Secondary Edu.Lucknow And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P.Singh,S.P.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

¶2By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite parties to make payment of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 18.12.2009 for the post Assistant Teacher in Adrash Sri Shiv Bahadur Sanskrit Mahavidayala, Ahorwa Bhawani, Raibarely.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding to the opposite party nos.1&2 for directing to the opposite party no.4 to act upon in accordance with the government order dated 25.4.1998.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the appropriate nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

(iv) To allow the writ petition with cost."

¶3Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Adrash Sri Shiv Bahadur Sanskrit Mahavidayala, Ahorwa Bhawani, Raibarely and is working since 18.12.2009. The respondents are not making payment of salary to the petitioner for the post on which she was appointed. The aforesaid college is a recognized degree college and has been brought under the grant and is being run and managed by the Committee of Management.

¶4The respondent No.5 wrote a letter to the respondent no.4 (D.I.O.S.) on 8.7.2004 stating that the post was vacant since 1997 due to retirement of Kaushal Kumar Dixit.

¶5When the D.I.O.S. has not taken any action upon the aforesaid letter, the respondent No.5 again wrote a letter dated

1.9.2009 stating therein that due to absence of the Teacher, he is facing great problem and demanded prior approval for appointment.

¶6On 24.9.2009, the respondent No.5 has made an advertisement in the two duly circulated newspaper of the area namely Anand Times and Danik Lucknow inviting the application for appointment on the post of Assistant Head of the Department of the aforesaid college and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner and other persons have sent their applications and appeared before the selection committee and the petitioner was selected in accordance with law and the respondent No.5 sent the appointment letter to the petitioner through registered post on 7.12.2009 and joined on 18.12.2009.

¶7In pursuance to the appointment letter, the petitioner joined the post and since then, she is performing her duties, function and responsibilities of the post. The petitioner was appointed against the vacancy which was created due to the retirement of Kaushal Kishore in the year 1997.

¶8On 21.12.2009, the respondent No.5 sent a letter to the respondent No.4 stating therein that the petitioner has been appointed and for according approval for the same. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations before the respondents for making payment of salary but no action whatsoever has been taken by the respondents regarding the same.

¶9Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted appointment on 7.12.2009, therefore, there is no justification on the part of the respondents not to disburse salary in favour of the petitioner. He submits that inaction on the part of the respondents is wholly unjustified.

¶10Last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for the payment of salary from the State Exchequer from the date of appointment i.e. 7.12.2009 and joined on 18.12.2009.

¶11On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel states that in case the appointment of the petitioner has been made w.e.f.

7.12.2009 and joined on 18.12.2009, she is entitled for the payment of salary from the State Exchequer from the date of her appointment.

¶12After having heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.

¶13On perusal of the record, it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner in Adrash Sri Shiv Bahadur Sanskrit Mahavidayala, Ahorwa Bhawani, Raibarely and was made on

7.12.2009. She continued to discharge her duties on the said post, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get salary from the date of appointment in Adrash Sri Shiv Bahadur Sanskrit Mahavidayala, Ahorwa Bhawani, Raibarely.

¶14While entertaining the writ petition, this Court vide order dated 8.9.2010, passed the following order, operative portion is quoted below :- "............................ In the aforesaid circumstances, the opposite parties are directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner regularly every month."

¶15In view of the above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

¶16However, direction is issued to the respondents to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 18.12.2009 and consequential benefits shall also be provided in accordance with law. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 GK Sinha High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench