Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15772 of 2016 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,H.K Asthana,Om Singh Rathaur
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Claim of petitioner for payment of salary as a teacher of attached primary to a recognized Sanskrit Institution is declined by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia vide his order dated 05.03.2016, which is impugned in the writ petition. The order impugned records that there are no documents available in the office of the District Inspector of Schools with regard to petitioner's appointment and working etc. and that the management has also failed to produce any material in support of such working of the petitioner.
Petitioner has annexed his letter of appointment and other documents to demonstrate that he is working. Attention of the Court has been invited to a previous Writ Petition No. 23385 of 1995, filed by the present petitioner along with other petitioners which came to be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in Ramesh Upadhya and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1993 (2) UPLBEC 945. The State filed a Special Appeal No.12 of 2003, which came to be disposed of vide on 25.05.2015 in terms of a previous order dated 23.03.2015 passed in Special Appeal No.531 of 2005, which reads as under:-
"So far as claim of the petitioners are that they are entitled for the salary similar to the teachers of the High School and Intermediate College under 1978 Act is concerned, issue is no more res integra. It is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court referred hereinabove. Therefore, the view of learned Single Judge is liable to be affirmed. However, a question whether the petitioners in the writ petitions are validly appointed teachers, has not been adjudicated at any stage. Therefore, we direct the authority concerned to examine the appointment of the petitioners and in case appointments of the petitioners are found to be in accordance to the law, the salary may be paid and in case if the authority concerned may arrive to the conclusion after giving opportunity to the hearing to the petitioners that they are not legally appointed, a reasoned order may be passed in this regard and in such circumstances, the petitioners may not be entitled for the salary in accordance to the law laid down by the Court.
With the aforesaid directions, both the special appeals stand disposed of."
Submission is that once a specific direction was issued for consideration of petitioner's claim and his right to receive salary from State was being considered the least that was expected from the District Inspector of Schools was that an opportunity of hearing would be given to him. It is contended that denial of opportunity in the facts of the case renders the order impugned bad in law. A specific plea has been taken in para 27 of the writ petition with regard to denial of opportunity to which there is no effective reply.
Once petitioner's claim for payment of salary was being considered in the backdrop of a direction previously issued by this Court it was expected that an opportunity of hearing would be given to the petitioner. Denial of opportunity in the facts and circumstances has clearly deprived the petitioner of his right to place correct facts before the District Inspector of the Schools. Order impugned consequently is found to be violative of principles of nature justice. Matter stands remitted to the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner shall appear before the District Inspector of Schools concerned on 11.10.2021 along with a copy of this order and shall be at liberty to produce all materials in support of his claim. The District Inspector of Schools shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the Managing Committee which is already represented before this Court and, therefore, no further notices need be issued to it. The Manager or its representative shall also remain present on 11.10.2021 and the District Inspector of Schools after getting the facts inquired into and after affording an opportunity of hearing shall proceed to pass a fresh order in the matter relating to sanction of salary from the State fund to petitioner within a period of three months, thereafter. The order impugned in the writ petition shall remain subject to the fresh order to be passed, as directed above.
In light of the above directions this petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.9.2021 Abhishek Singh