Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25200 of 2018 Petitioner :- Naval Kishore Sharma And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yogendra Singh Bohra
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The petitioners before this Court are retired teachers of the Institutions namely Junior/ Senior Basic Schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad.
The grievance of the petitioners is that by the order impugned dated 28.12.2017 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 were 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 they did not worked 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 petitioners were 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'), Aligarh 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 Y.S. Bohra, 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.
In view of the above, therefore, the findings returned in the order impugned by the concerned authority cannot be sustained in law and so the order dated 28.12.2017 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The DBEO, Aigarh, the 5th respondent is hereby directed to revisit the matter in the light of judgment in the case of Angad Yadav (supra) and take a decision afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 IrfanUddin