Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52018 of 2007 Petitioner :- Prem Shankar Pandey Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Mishra,A.N. Tripathi,R.P. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
This petition has been preferred seeking the following relief:-
"(i) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration declaring the petitioner to be treated as full fledged lecturer in Math with entitlement of payment of salary in terms of maintenance grant by State Government in terms of recognition of the institution upot Intermediate standard in the year 1951 with the subject Math and the post of Lecturer in Math which post and subject in terms of the said recognition of 1951 would be deemed to be within grant-in-aid inasmuch as the recognition of High School in 1948 with the subject Math was within the grant-in-aid in the year 1949 and as such the institution with grant-in-aid as High School will be deemed to be as grant-in-aid with Intermediate standard and in terms of Section 2(b) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 the liability of the payment of salary in respect of petitioner's case falls on the State Government.
(ii) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in terms of Section 2(b) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 with effect from 1.8.1997 till date under joint bank account in terms of U.P. Act No. 24 of 197.
(iii) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents to continue to permit the petitioner to sign on the common attendance register of the institution with effect from 12.9.2007 onwards and in future also and not to force the petitioner to sign in separate attendance register."
Undisputedly the petitioner has been engaged on a contractual basis by the concerned Management by virtue of powers conferred by Section 7AA of the 1921 Act. By the very nature of the appointment which is envisaged under the provision aforementioned, the engagement of the petitioner is contractual and liability towards payment of his salary and other emoluments vests solely upon the Management. The petitioner in effect seeks absorption of his appointment against a post in the regular cadre. This cannot possibly be countenanced or accepted once the petitioner has accepted his contractual engagement with open eyes and also bearing in mind the fact that his engagement in terms thereof was not in accordance with the statutory procedure which is envisaged for the making of regular appointments under the 1921 Act.
The writ petition consequently fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 faraz