Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7371 of 2018 Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Basic Education And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. This is thoroughly misconceived and ill advised petition. The petitioner claims to be resident of Village Hatsa, Tehsil Bisauli, District Budaun and has sought a mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 not to pay salary to respondent 6 and also a mandamus to decide his representation dated 09.11.2017.
3. In the alleged representation it is said that payment of salary to respondent 6 as it is, be maintained and should not be increased as per new Government Order wherein honorarium of Shiksha Mitra has been increased.
4. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show as to how a person working in a particular capacity will not be entitled for payment of salary as per prescribed quantum of honorarium under relevant provisions. Moreover, petitioner is only a complainant and is not a party in the lis at all.
5. A Division Bench of this Court in Amin Khan Vs. State of U.P., 2008 (2) AWC 2002 has said, "in case he was a complainant, he could be, at the most, examined as a witness in the enquiry but he cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis."
6. The same view has been taken in another Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 382 of 2008 (Guru Prasad Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 13.3.2008 and a single Judge decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18839 of 2008 (Shravan Kumar Chauhan Vs. state of U.P. decided on 11.04.2008.
7. The writ petition is thoroughly misconceived.
8. Dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 KA