JUDGMENT A.P. Sahi, J.
1. The petitioners claim to have been appointed as class IV employees, after having been selected, pursuant to the advertisement dated 6.2.2004. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, that the said advertisement was issued after obtaining permission from the Distt. Inspector of Schools, an endorsement whereof is said to have been made on the request made by the Principal on 20.1.2004. To support the contention, the petitioners have filed the said letter of the Principal bearing the endorsement of the Distt. Inspector of Schools as Annexure I to the writ petition.
2. The claim of the payment of salary of the petitioner was placed before the respondents and the Distt. Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 27.10.2004 has sent the entire record) the Regional Level Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education of the Region concerned for direction on the question of payment of salary to the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the appointment of the petitioners is valid and since they are discharging their duties as such they are entitled to their salary, which has been denied to them without there being any lawful excuse for the same. It has been urged that the Institution in question is governed by the Payment of Salary Act i.e. namely U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and since the petitioners have been appointed against created and sanctioned posts they are entitled to the payment of their salary, through the Distt. Inspector of Schools, who is an authority under the Statue and is obliged to disburse the same. On the aforesaid basis, it is alleged that U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 does not envisage the approval or sanction of any authority other than the Distt. Inspector of Schools, therefore, sending of the file to the regional Level Committee was absolutely unnecessary.
4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel has invited the attention of this court to the various Government Orders issued from time to time to indicate that the Regional Level Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education, continues to enjoy the power to scrutinise such appointments and issue such recommendations as are necessary for disbursement of salary. The first Government Order is of 1995, which indicates the work distribution of officers and authorities. It, however, does not indicate that the Regional Joint Director of Education has any power to exercise authority in respect of disbursement of salary of the employees of a recognised Institution under the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. Consequently, issuance of the subsequent clarification does not advance the argument of the learned standing counsel any further. However, learned standing counsel relied on the Government Order dated 19.12.2000,wherein for the first lime the Regional Level Committee headed by Joint Director of Education has been given the power and enjoined with the duly to consider such matters which are referred to it, including the matter of payment of salary of any employee of a recognised Institution, This is evident from the perusal of Clause 5 of the last paragraph of the said Government Order dated 19.12.2000. However, the said Government Order says that the matter shall be scrutinised by the Regional Level Committee and recommendation shall be made to the appropriate authority under the Act and Rules for passing an order in accordance with law. The Government Order, therefore, further does not authorise or confer any other authority on the Regional Level Committee or Joint Director of Education to exercise any such power itself, which is specifically conferred on the Distt. Inspector of Schools under a Statue. To put it conversely, the Distt. Inspector of Schools is not prevented or prohibited from exercising his power to disburse the payment of salary under the Payment of Salary Act, ( Act No. 24 of 1971),It appears that the said Government Order became subject matter of scrutiny in a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench in the case of Ardhana Maurya v. State of U.P., wherein an interim order was issued on 7.8.2001 and taking cognizance of the said interim order a clarification was issued by the Secretary of the Department of Secondary Education of Uttrar Pradesh on 16.1.2002, wherein it has been stated that the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 shall not apply in the matters, which are engaging the attention of any court through out the State. Thus such matters in which judicial intervention has taken place, cannot be subject matter of scrutiny by the Regional Level Committee under the Government Order dated 19.12.2000.
5. A perusal of the aforesaid facts and relevant Government Orders, which have been placed before the court, it is obvious that the power of the Distt. Inspector of Schools to make the payment of salary is not subject to any authority and the Distt. Inspector of Schools is under an obligation to pass orders delegated to him under the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, order in accordance with the provisions contained therein. Not only this it is obligation of the Distt. Inspector of Schools to pass such an order and ensure the payment of salary to the validly appointed and approved employee, which cannot be either deducted or with held except for, under the contingencies, referred to in the provisions of Act No. 24 of 1971, In these circumstances and in view of the aforesaid provisions indicated herein above, the Distt, Inspector of Schools has to perform the duty of passing a final order in respect of payment of salary of teachers /employees of a recognised Institution, in the event the Institution is under grant in aid list or within the purview of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971.
6. Accordingly, the Distt. Inspector of Schools, Ballia is directed to further scrutinize the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in respect of the payment of salary of the petitioners and in case they are found entitled to the same, the same be paid within three weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.