Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12238 of 2019 Petitioner :- Jay Mangal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6.
The petitioners before this Court is retired teacher of the Institution namely Junior/ Senior Basic Schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad.
The grievance of the petitioners is that by the order impugned dated 03.11.2016 they have been denied payment of salary for the period they have not worked on an extension of service due to session benefit. The submission is that the petitioners were illegally deprived of the extension of service due to retirement in mid of session only on account of alteration in the session by the Government Order. However, later on correction being made, they have extended benefit for the remaining period of extended service due to session benefit.
The controversy whether the petitioners would be entitled for payment of salary or not for the period he did not work admittedly, though earlier before this Court Writ - A No. 33360 of 2017, Angad Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others decided on 19.08.2017 which though has been appealed against but has attained finality in so far as the controversy is concerned and this Court has already directed in that case for payment of salary for the period, the petitioner was wholly illegally denied extension.
From the perusal of order impugned, this Court finds that the District Basic Education Officer (hereinafter to be referred as 'DBEO'), has not considered the above judgment and the ratio laid down therein with the ultimate conclusion drawn by this Court while passing the order impugned.
Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel representing the concerned respondents admit that the judgment has not been taken into account though it was passed on 19.08.2017 itself. He further submitted that final order has been passed by Division Bench of this Court on 24.03.2017 in Special Appeal Defective No.123 of 2017 (Babadin Yadav (Inre 5378 S/S 2015) Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Basic Education & 4 Others) in which the Court had granted relief to the petitioner. Against which a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26614/2017 (The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Babadin Yadav) has been filed, which was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 03.07.2018 with the finding that the impugned order passed by the High Court not to be treated as precedent in any other case.
Under such facts and circumstances of the case, once it is undisputed that judgement 19.08.2017 passed in Writ-A No.33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) has not been considered while passing the impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent no.5 shall pass fresh order considering the judgement of Angad Yadav (supra), Babadin Yadav (supra) and The State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) passed by the Apex Court maximum within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Impugned order dated 03.11.2016 shall abide by the fresh order passed by respondent no.5.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Radhika