Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25668 of 2016 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Ram Pandey
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against an order dated 20.1.2015 passed by the Secretary U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad in so far as salary has been denied to petitioner between 5.3.2012 to 17.12.2014 and 22.1.2015 to 4.4.2016.
Records reveal that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Higher Primary School Nadauli Purwa, Siksha Kshetra,Haliya, District Mirapur. He joined and started working w.e.f. January, 2006. The basis of petitioner's appointment was the B.Ed. degree issued from veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur in the year 2000. This degree was also verified by the University. However, vide order dated 5.3.2012, contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, petitioner was terminated from service on the ground that his B. Ed. Degree has not been certified and that forged marks have formed the basis of such certificate. Petitioner appears to have represented in the matter and various reports were called for from the Examination Controller of the University. On 31.12.2014, the Examination Controller of veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Janpur informed the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur that petitioner's B. Ed. Degree of the year 2000 is valid.
Based upon such order, the District Basic Education Officer recalled the order of termination of petitioner dated 5.3.2012 and reinstated him in service. Yet again, by an order dated 22.1.2015, the order of reinstatement dated 17.12.2014 was cancelled on the ground that such order was obtained by misrepresentation. Petitioner again represented the matter to the authorities and ultimately after his B. Ed. degree was verified by the University, the Secretary of the Parishad has reinstated petitioner in service by setting aside the order dated 22.1.2015. However, for the period during which petitioner remained out of employment, he has been denied salary. Aggrieved by this part of the order, petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was ready and willing to work and he was prohibited from working only on account of specific order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur which has been found to be unsustainable, in view of subsequent certification of petitioner's B. Ed. Degree. It is stated that having restrained the petitioner from work during such period, the authority cannot deny payment of salary to petitioner as it amounts to putting premium on the arbitrary act of the respondents themselves.
A counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Jay Ram Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent, to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.
I have heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri Jay Ram Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and perused the materials on record.
From the materials brought on record, it is apparent that the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 2005 and has been working satisfactorily as such, without any complaint. The interruption in such working was caused on account of specific orders passed by the authorities who had doubted the genuineness of petitioner's B. Ed. Degree. The secretary of the Parishad has ultimately found, on the basis of inquiry conducted, that petitioner's B. Ed. degree is valid. Once that be so, the action of the respondents in denying salary to petitioner or keeping him out of employment, cannot be sustained. The authorities have rightly reinstated the petitioner in service. However, denial of salary for the period he has not been allowed to work by the respondents, cannot be sustained as it amounts to putting premium on the actions of respondents in interfering with petitioner's right to function, which has since been found unjustified. Petitioner, at every point of time, was ready and willing to work. Once the action of the respondents is found to be unauthorised, the petitioner would be entitled to payment of salary for the period he has been kept out of employment.
Writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 22.1.2015 passed by the Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad, Mirzapur respondent no. 2, to the extent it denies salary to petitioner for the period he was not permitted to work, cannot be sustained and is set aside. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to release salary for the period noted above, during which period he was not permitted to work. Such payment shall be worked out and released to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 29.9.2021 n.u.