Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6540 of 2018 Petitioner :- Dinesh Prasad Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Basic Education Sachiwalaya Building U.P. At Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akshay Kumar Shukla,Navneet Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Shere Ali
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition is being decided, on consent, without calling for counter affidavit.
Petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Nehru Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kunserawan, Block Nautanwa, District Maharajganj.
By means of the instant petition, petitioner seek the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to take immediate steps for payment of arrears of salary of the petitioner from 01.07.2015 to 19.10.2015.
ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the authorities to grant one annual increment due to July 2015 the petitioner was entitled for.
iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to award selection grade to the petitioner on completion of 10 year.
iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to award the benefit of 7th Pay Commission due to the petitioner in January 2016."
This Court on 19th August, 2017 in an identical writ petition, being Writ-A No. 33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others), which was filed by the similarly placed persons challenging the same impugned order and seeking similar and identical relief, has passed a detailed judgment and order allowing the writ petition. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:
"Applying these principles on the facts of the present case, I find that the petitioners in terms of the change of the academic session, when admittedly their dates of superannuation fall during the academic session i.e. 01st April, 2015 to 31st March, 2016 as their dates of birth are 01.07.1953, 01.06.1953, 01.05.1953, 03.05.1953, 01.07.1953, 01.07.1953, 01.07.1953 and 15.05.1953 respectively, they were entitled for the sessional benefit and to continue upto 31st March, 2016. There was no fault on their part as they were not allowed to work after 30th June, 2015. A specific direction was issued not to allow them to continue beyond 30th June, 2015. The said direction, as mentioned above, was manifestly erroneous and contrary to the well settled practice and the relevant Rules to give the session benefit to such teachers whose date of superannuation falls during the academic session. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 08th October, 2015 rectifying the said mistake, hence the Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 that the teachers who were allowed to continue after the judgment of Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra) and the Government Order dated 08th October, 2015, will not be paid salary from 30th June, 2015 till their rejoining is arbitrary and unreasonable. When the Government itself had issued an order dated 08th October, 2015, there was no justification to issue the impugned order dated 02nd May, 2017, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra). As noted above, the Division Bench has declared the Government Order dated 15th June, 2015 illegal.
Regard may be had to the fact that on the basis of the said order, the petitioners were denied sessional benefits. Once the said order was set aside, the petitioners became entitled to continue. The respondents have also allowed the petitioners to rejoin their position.
Therefore, in the said background and on a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The petitioners are entitled for their salary from 30th June, 2015 till the date of their rejoining. Ordered accordingly.
Thus, the writ petition stands allowed."
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer. They are agreed that the facts of the present petition are identical to that of Angad Yadav (supra) and this writ petition may also be decided in the same terms.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms as in Angad Yadav (supra).
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 A. Pandey