Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10409 of 2021 Petitioner :- Alp Narayan Payasi Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar, Pramod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ved Byas Mishra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Surya Bhan Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 and Shri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
The petitioner is before this Court for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent-authorities to grant financial sanction to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer/Acharya (Vyakaran) in the institution in question and pay him monthly salary from the State Exchequer alongwith all arrears.
Initially a similar Writ A No. 7804 of 2020 was entertained on 18.12.2020 and an interim order was accorded to the following effect:-
"Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel in support of this petition assisted by Sri H.P. Shahi. Although the second respondent is duly represented none has appeared on its behalf. Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel has appeared for the respondents 1, 3 and 4.
The appointment of the petitioner as a Principal was approved by the Vice Chancellor of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University in terms of his order of 15 May 2017. It appears that a working journalist addressed a complaint to the State Government on which directions were issued to the Commissioner to undertake an enquiry. That enquiry concluded with the Commissioner submitting a report on 15 October 2018 holding that the allegations levelled in respect of the validity of the appointment accorded to the petitioner were baseless. On further directions of the State Government a fresh enquiry was thereafter undertaken again by the Commissioner in terms of the order of the State Government of 05 February 2019. That enquiry also concluded in terms of the report appended at Annexure -29 to the writ petition holding that the complaint was without substance. Despite the aforesaid position prevailing on facts the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been paid salary even though he has been dutifully discharging his functions since 2017. The Court on 21 October 2020 had after hearing counsels for respective parties called upon the respondent State to respond in the following terms:
"Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall obtain instructions from respondents 1 to 4 explaining reasons why despite approval having been accorded to the appointment of the petitioner by the Vice Chancellor in terms of his order dated 15 May 2017 and the petitioner consequently being appointed and also joining the post, salary has not been released.
Include in the list of fresh cases of 19 November 2020."
The matter was thereafter adjourned on 19 November 2020 on the request of the learned Standing Counsel. On 07 December 2020, the learned Additional Advocate General appeared and sought further time to obtain instructions. The matter was thereafter placed for 17 December 2020. On a request made yesterday, the matter was again adjourned and included on the board of the Court today. Today again a prayer for adjournment of the matter is made at the behest of respondent No. 1. While seeking adjournment no plausible cause or explanation is proffered. The prayer for adjournment is consequently refused.
There is no dispute before this Court that once the appointment of the petitioner had been duly approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University, it was incumbent upon the District Inspector of Schools to have processed his claim for salary in terms of the provisions made in the 1971 Act. The Court has not been shown any provision in terms of which the State Government may sit either in appeal or review over a decision of the Vice Chancellor or to stall further steps being taken by the District Inspector of Schools under the provisions of the 1971 Act.
In view of the aforesaid, an interim mandamus is hereby issued commanding the fourth respondent to release all salaries and emoluments due and payable to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment or to show cause. The first respondent shall also file his personal affidavit in this matter explaining the position of the State in case the respondents choose to show cause and not release the payments due to the petitioner.
Include in the additional cause list of 04 January 2021. "
Admittedly, the said order has not been complied with by the respondents on account of pendency of Special Appeal (Defective) No. 309 of 2021 (State of U.P. and 2 others Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Pandey and 2 others). Furthermore, the Special Appeal (Defective) No. 309 of 2021 was dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 7.6.2021. Consequently, the Court has proceeded to pass an order on 6.8.2021 to the following effect:-
"Despite interim mandamus issued by this Court on 18.12.2020 for payment of salary to the petitioner, no salary has been paid to the petitioner till date.
The affidavit filed in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 18.12.2020 in no way clarifies the queries raised by this Court.
In view of the fact that despite there being mandamus, salary is not being paid, as such, the Court is left with no other alternative but to direct the Respondent No. 4 to remain personally present before this Court on 17.8.2021. On which date, the Court will consider for taking appropriate and suitable action for non-compliance of the order of this Court, as the Court may deem fit. In the event, salary is paid to the petitioner in terms as confirmed in Special Appeal Defective No. 309 of 2021, the Respondent No. 4 need not appear.
Put up this matter on 17.8.2021 in the additional cause list. "
Finally the Writ A No. 7804 of 2020 (Dr. Sushil Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) was disposed of by the order dated 17.8.2021. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:-
".....In view of the statement made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no.4-District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner within a period of two months from today.
It is made clear that if arrears of salary of petitioner is not paid within the aforesaid period, payment of arrears of salary shall shall entail 12% simple interest from the date it is due till date of payment. In the event, any interest is paid in pursuance of direction of this Court on account of delayed payment of arrears of salary, amount of interest shall be recovered from erring officer. "
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case of Dr. Sushil Kumar Pandey (supra) relates to the post of Principal but in similar facts and circumstances by the same recruitment process, the petitioner was also inducted as Lecturer (Vyakaran) and approval was also accorded by the Vice Chancellor of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University. Therefore, it has been contended that there is no dispute once the appointment of the petitioner has been duly approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University, it was incumbent upon the District Inspector of Schools to have processed the claim of the petitioner for salary in terms of the provisions under the 1971 Act. Similarly, in the present matter, the respondents have not shown any provision in terms of which the State Government may sit either in appeal or review over a decision of the Vice Chancellor or to stall further steps being taken by the District Inspector of Schools under the provisions of the 1971 Act. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present writ petition may be disposed of in term of Dr. Sushil Kumar Pandey (supra).
Sofaras the factual and legal aspect of the matter is concerned, the same has not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel or by the learned counsel appearing for the University.
In the facts an circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner is also on similar footing in the light of Dr. Sushil Kumar Pandey (supra). The present writ petition stands disposed of in terms of Dr. Sushil Kumar Pandey (supra). The respondent no. 4- District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur is directed to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Jaswant