Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15851 of 2017 Petitioner :- C/M, Ramkrishna Sanskrit Madhyamik Vid. And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Shyam Shankar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.K. Srivastava
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Prabhakar Awasthi and Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent no.6 as well as Sri A.K.Yadav, learned counsel appearing for State authorities.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner which is Committee of Management has come to this Court challenging the order of grant of approval for payment of salary to respondent no.6. It is submitted that the institution in question is a Sanskrit Vidyalay governed by the U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education( Appointment and Condition of Services of Head of Institutions, Teachers and Other Employees of the Institutions) Rules, 2009. At the time of taking into grant-in- aid list of the aforesaid institution, the petitioner had forwarded the manager return on 15.3.2014. In the manager return amongst various other teachers, the name of respondent no.6 finds place at serial no.8.
It is submitted that respondent no.6 was not coming to the institution and, therefore, a notice was issued to respondent no.6 dated 15.4.2014 to join the post and thereafter another notice dated 20.7.2014 was issued to respondent no.6 to join the institution but when he did not join, by a resolution of Committee of Management dated 3.8.2014, it was resolved to dismiss respondent no.6 from the service and the order of dismissal was finally passed on 10.8.2014 which order was never challenged by respondent no.6 and became final. The said information with regard to the dismissal was forwarded to the Addl. Director of Education( Sanskrit) on 15.8.2016. The said notice was prior to the institution being brought under grant in aid which was brought on 25.1.2016. In the said approval for grant in aid, 4 posts of teachers was sanctioned and the name of respondent no.6 finds place in the said list. The Committee of Management objected to the fact that since respondent no.6 has abandoned his services and he has also been terminated by the Committee of Management, the inclusion of his name in the list of sanctioned post was incorrect. The said information was given to the DIOS also who sent first salary list which was with regard to three teachers and the name of respondent no.6 was not there.However, the DIOS by the impugned order has allowed payment of salary to respondent no.6 while rejecting the claim of the Committee of Management with regard to the dismissal of service of respondent no.6.
Sri Anil Bhushan submits that he is duly approved by the government and is entitled for payment of salary and the order of dismissal was never served upon the petitioner and in fact is a manipulated document which cannot affect his right to receive salary once it was approved by the educational authorities.
A dispute has been raised by the Committee of Management with regard to the continuance of respondent no.6 in the institution and at the behest of the Committee of Management even the DIOS after passing the first salary bill did not mention the name of respondent no.6, as such, in my view it would be appropriate that the Committee of Management and respondent no.6 appear before the Director, Sanskrit Education who will consider the claim of both the parties and after giving opportunity of hearing and verification of document shall decide the dispute within a specified time to be fixed by the Director, Sankrit Education after notice to the parties.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.4.2017 VPC