Anita Devi and Ors v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and Ors

Order (Oral) Application with affidavit of apology filed in Court is taken on record. Learned counsel for respondents prays for and is granted a week's time to file reply to the application. Operation of further proceedings towards the charge drawn for committing contempt of this Court shall remain deferred till the next date of hearing. These two Special Appeals namely Special Appeal No.84 of 2010 and Special Appeal No.122 of 2010 arise out of judginents and orders passed by learned Single Judges in Writ Petition No.8253 (SS) of 2007 (dated 5.5.2009) and Contempt Petition No.2111 of 2009 (dated

16.03.2010) respectively. The main reason that has given rise to these litigations seems to be the operative portion of the order passed by learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. Last two paragraphs of the said judgment, on reproduction, would read as: "…........It is not in dispute that the Section of the Institution imparting education upto Shastri and Acharya level is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and the salaries, of the teaching and non-teaching staff of that Section of the Institution is being paid by the Sate Government. The State Government by its Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2004 had granted permission to the Management of the Institution to run classes upto Acharya and Shastri level and Uttar Madhyama level subject to the conditions mentioned in the said Office Memorandum and Management of the Institution having fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2004, the State Government is bound to make payment of the petitioners' salary. The submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the State Government is not liable to pay the petitioners' salary for the reason that the posts against which the petitioners have been appointed have not been sanctioned by the opposite party No.5 is totally misconceived and unacceptable. The petitioners have been appointed under the provisions of U.P. Act No.32 of 2000, which is self contained Act and there is nothing in the Act which may indicate that the provisions of Payment of Salary Act, 1971 shall apply to the persons appointed as Assistant Teachers in the Institution imparting education upto Uttar Madhyama for the purpose of payment of their salary. Since the State Government is paying salary of the teachers and the non-teaching employees working in the section of the Institution in which education upto Acharya and Shastri level is being imparted, the State Government, in my opinion, cannot deny its liability to make payment of the petitioners' salary w.e.f. the date of their appointments. In the result, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties No.1 to 5 to take necessary decision on the representations dated 23.10.2007 submitted by the Manager of Srimat Param Hans Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Tikarmafi, Sultanpur (Annexures No.4 to 8 to the writ petition) and on the petitioners' claim for payment of their salary from the date of their respective appointments in the Institution in the light of the observations made hereinabove and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order." As the learned Single Judge rejected the arguments of learned counsel for State and concluded by expressing opinion inter alia that the State Government cannot deny its liability to make payment of petitioners' salary from the date of their appointments, then perhaps there was no reason to direct the State to consider the representation. The earlier Secretary, Secondary Education, Sri Jitendra Kumar while deciding the representation proceeded in the ignorance of the above findings which though the Court has referred as observations are in the nature of mandate of the judgment. Thus, we hold that irrespective of rejection of representation submitted by the Manager dated

23.10.2007 by the Secretary, the teachers and non teaching staff as directed vide the impugned judgment, would be entitled to get their salary. Nonetheless we cannot ignore the apathy of the State as well as the Union of India towards the institutions which are imparting education in Sanskrit, It appears that the State as well as the Central Government has forgotten the theme and mandate as contained in Article 351 of the Constitution. The said Article on reproduction would read as: "351. Directive for development of the Hindi language.- It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages" Accordingly, we issue notice to the Secretary, Human Resources, Government of India, to file reply as to why the Central Government has not made provision for grant in aid or some similar type of financial help to such institutions in the light of mandate of the Article as aforesaid. Let the reply be filed by the Central Government as well as the State through their Secretaries before the next date of hearing. Issuance of this notice is necessitated in the light of grouse that for the past many years after bifurcation of this institution, it has not been provided sufficient number of teachers and non teaching staff in the absence of grant in aid. List on 05.03.2013.

¶27Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that irrespective of rejection of representation submitted by the Manager, the teacher and non-teaching staff would be entitled to get their salary and it has also been observed that 'nonetheless we cannot ignore the apathy of the State as well as Union of India towards the institution which are imparting education in Sanskrit.'

¶28It is noteworthy that the petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions are getting salary from the State-Exchequer as the State has taken decision positively on the claim raised by those petitioners. The case of the present petitioners are ditto identical to those petitioners of writ petition no. 8253 of 2007 and thus, the present petitioners are entitled for same relief.

¶29In view of the above-said submissions and discussions, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed.

¶30The State Government i.e. opposite party no. 1 is hereby directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners regarding their payment of salary, in light of the judgment and orders dated 05.05.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 8253 (SS) 2007 (Shiva Kant Mishra and others versus State of U.P. and others) and order dated 12.11.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 6520 (SS) of 2013 (Sushil Kumar Pandey and 13 others versus State of U.P. and others) and the benefit of the said judgments shall also be extended to the present petitioners, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of certified copy of this order produced before it.

¶31Needless to say that identical question is subjudice in Special Appeal No. 122 of 2010 connected with Special Appeal No. 80 of 2010 and therefore, the decision taken by the State Government shall be subject matter of final outcome of the special appeals. Order Date :- 16.04.2024 Mayank High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

AFR Court No. - 20 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15838 of 2020 Petitioner :- Anita Devi And Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Tripathi,Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqv Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhay Raj Singh Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Rohit Tripath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Raj Kumar Singh, advocate, holding brief of Sri Abhay Raj Singh, counsel for opposite party no. 5, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Vivek Shukla, learned additional chief standing counsel for the State. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 18.12.2019, whereby the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary from State exchequer, has been been rejected. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the institution was established in year 1978 as Sanskrit College Imparting Education from class-VI (Prathma) to Post- Graduate (Acharya) level and it was affiliated to Sampurnanad Sanskrit University, Varanasi and started receiving financial grant from the State Government and the integrated system from School to Post Graduate level continued for almost 20 years, but later on, for regulating the system of Sanskrit Education and to maintain the standards of such institution, the U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Ordinance, 2000, subsequently Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Act, 2000 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Act 2000'), was promulgated wherein, five categories were classified as Prathmik, Purva Madhyamik, Uttar Madhyamik, Shashtri and Acharya. 4. After the aforesaid enactment, looking into the vacancies, the institution started the process of recruitment against the post of Teaching and Non- Teaching staff and thereafter, the petitioners applied for and were duly selected. The details of the petitioners with the description of their post and appointment are given herein under:- Petitioner No. Name Post Date of Appointment 1. Anita Devi Asstt. Teacher (Modern Studies) 03.07.2000 2. Anita Singh Asstt. Teacher 05.08.2001 3. Narvadeshwar Nath Sharma Principal 03.07.2000 4. Rajeev Bhatt Asstt. Teacher (Litt) 03.07.2000 5. Krishna Pratap Pandey Asstt. Teacher (Litt) 22.01.2000 6. Karunesh Chaturvedi Asstt. Teacher 08.08.2005 7. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Asstt. Teacher (Litt.) 13.07.2006 8. Vinod Kumar Pandey Clerk 15.07.2000 9. Nagesh Tripathi Clerk 22.07.2000 10. Krishna Deo Pathak Peon 02.07.2000 11. Hari Ram Mishra Peon 02.07.2000 5. After the recruitment, the petitioners joined and they are continuously working on their respective posts up till date. He submits that by means of option letter dated 17.07.2002, the classification of institution was resolved/decided to run the institution for two levels and the option indicated in the letter dated 17.07.2002, shows that the state Government approved/recognized two sections uptill Prathama to Uttar Madhyama section and this was segregated from Graduate and Post Graduate sections i.e. Shastri and Acharya and thereafter, the petitioners became employees of the intermediate section by virtue of operation of the Act, 2000, but once they sought payment of salary from the State Exchequer, their claims were rejected while giving the reasons that since they are not duly appointed, therefore, and their appointments are irregular. 6. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that since section 25 of the Act, 2000 itself speaks that 'Subject to provision of this Act, the head of the institution and teachers and other employees of an institution shall be appointed in accordance with the regulation'. 7. Referring the aforesaid provision, the counsel for the petitioners submits that since the regulation is admittedly came in to the existence on 15.01.2010 and the appointments which were done likewise appointments of the petitioners from the date of promulgation of the Act, 2000 and up till the promulgation of the regulation in year 2010, the State has denied