Heard Mr. Anurag Tripathi learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 to 3, Mr. Afzal Siddiqui learned counsel for opposite party No.4 and Mr. M.B. Singh learned counsel for opposite parties 5 and 6 whose vakalatnama is taken on record.
Affidavit of service filed by petitioner is also taken on record.
Petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
" (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.3, 4 and 5, to pay the substances allowances according to rule 53, part 2 to 4, Chapter II of the Financial Hand Book, with present basic pay."
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier petitioner had been suspended from service on 8th November, 2014 whereafter petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 11th June, 2016 which was rejected by the Registrar vide order dated 18th November, 2016. The said order was challenged by Committee of Management before this Court in writ petition No. 1753 (S/S) of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 24th January, 2017 allowing the writ petition and quashing the order dated 18th November, 2016 and remanding the matter while directing that the petitioner would be deemed to be under suspension until final decision taken by the Registrar.
It is submitted that the Registrar thereafter decided the matter which has again been agitated by way of writ petition before this court and the writ petition is still pending consideration but the petitioner continues to be under suspension. It is submitted that in the mean time the basic pay of the post of Assistant Teacher, which the petitioner is holding has undertaken a revision and therefore the petitioner is entitled to enhanced rate of subsistence allowance in terms of of Rule 53 ( Part II to IV), Chapter II of the Financial Hand book.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 5 and 6 has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the provision of Financial Hand Book would not be applicable upon the petitioner who is to be governed by the service regulations applicable upon teachers of Madarsa. It is also submitted that the Madarsa management has already submitted a reply to the District Minority Welfare Officer indicating the aforesaid factor, who may be directed to take a decision thereupon. It has also been submitted that a suspended teacher of Madarsa is not entitled to any increment on the subsistence allowance.
Learned counsel for petitioner does not have any objection in case the District Minority Welfare Officer is directed to take a decision.
In view of aforesaid, the opposite party No.3 i.e. the District Minority Welfare Officer, Lucknow is directed to take a final decision with regard to the grievance of petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him along with fresh representation after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 prabhat