Court No. - 5
Reserved on 28.07.2021 Delevered on 24.08.2021.
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14865 of 2020 Petitioner :- Prem Shankar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. This Court on 07.07.2021 granted two weeks' and no more further time to the learned Standing Counsel for filing counter affidavit, but despite there being stop order, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondents, therefore, the writ petition is being heard without any counter affidavit.
2. Heard Sri Ajay Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Shri Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 5.
3. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has assailed the order dated 05.11.2020, passed by the respondent no.2-Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of U.P.,Lucknow, by which he has rejected the representation of the petitioner for payment of salary.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the Janta Inter College, Nunari Purva Sujan, District Auraiya (here-in- after referred to as the 'Institution') was recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 without any aid from the State Government.
5. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Teacher after following the due procedure and, approval to the appointment of the petitioner has been granted by the District Inspector of Schools (here-in-after referred to as the 'DIOS') by the order dated 09.03.1995 and his date of joining in the Institution is 11.03.1995. The Institution came on grant-in-aid by the order dated 18.07.2005 passed by the competent authority and, accordingly, Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees ) Act, 1971 became applicable on the Institution.
6. The petitioner claims to have been working in the Institution before the Institution came on grant-in-aid. When the salary of the petitioner was not released, petitioner preferred a writ petition being Writ-A No.711 (S/S) of 2007 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2007 permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority, who was to decide it within the time frame prescribed by the Court, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
7. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 07.08.2011 passed by the competent authority, Secretary, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
8. Since, the order dated 07.08.2011 was an ex-parte order, therefore, the petitioner preferred a recall application on 20.8.2011.
9. When the competent authority did not pay any heed on the application of the petitioner dated 20.08.2021 for recall of the order dated 07.08.2011, the petitioner approached this Court by means of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5498 of 2014 which was dismissed by this Court on 22.10.2014 on the ground of delay and laches.
10. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a Special Appeal No.199 of 2014 which came to be allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2015, whereby this Court directed the respondent no.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner after giving show cause notice to the petitioner.
11. Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 14.10.2015 passed by this Court, the DIOS issued a notice to the petitioner for hearing before the respondent no.1, however, hearing could not take place on the date fixed and, accordingly, the next date fixed was 22.08.2016.
12. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the show cause notice, petitioner as well as Committee of Management filed documents on which the Principal Secretary, Secondary Education summoned the report. The Principal Secretary, thereafter, by an order dated 05.11.2020 rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that the petitioner's appointment was not made on any sanctioned post. The order recites that the petitioner did not file any written representation in support of his claim.
13. The impugned order further records that the representative of the petitioner was heard and he was put to certain queries, the answers of which have been recorded in the order.
14. The impugned order further records that in reply to the question as to whether the petitioner has original letter of appointment, it is stated that he does not possess the original letter of appointment. In reply to another question at Sl. No.4 in table, it was stated that the original records relating to office of respondents are not available due to death of the then Manager of the College.
15. The impugned order also notes that as per the letter of the Director of Education (Madhyamik), three posts of 'Paricharak' were sanctioned by the office of Director of Education by order dated 19.02.1991. Since, the dispatch register of the year 1990-91 is not available in the department, therefore, sanction of the aforesaid posts could not be verified. The order further records that the Signature of Sri Heera Singh, the then Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), who is alleged to have issued letter dated 19.02.1991 for sanctioning the posts, is forged as the signature of Sri Heera Singh does not match with his signature on the other records which has been signed by Sri Heera Singh.
16. The impugned order further recites that the original appointment letter of the petitioner was not received from the office of DIOS, nor the Institution has supplied the original appointment letter of the petitioner. It is further recorded in the impugned order that since the original letter as well as approval granted by the then DIOS are not available in the records of the office of the DIOS, Auraiya/Etawah, nor the same has been produced by the petitioner and further that the letter dated 19.02.1991 issued by the Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik) is forged, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for grant of salary is not sustainable.
17. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned has been passed malafidely and illegally, inasmuch as it is evident from the order of the DIOS dated 09.03.1995 granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner that the petitioner has been duly appointed in accordance with law, hence, denial of the salary to the petitioner is illegal and not sustainable in law.
18. Pere contra, learned Standing Counsel would contend that the impugned order unequivocally records a finding that the letter dated 19.02.1991 sanctioning the posts in the Institution is forged document as the signature of Sri Heera Singh, the then Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), who is alleged to have issued this letter, does not match with his signature in other records of the department and further, the original letter dated 19.02.1991 has not been produced by the petitioner.
19. He further submits that the petitioner has not even produced the original appointment letter and letter of approval and, therefore, the finding recorded by the respondent no.1 that the claim of the petitioner based on the letter dated 19.02.1991, which is a forged document, is not sustainable and is a finding of fact, inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to produce any material on record to substantiate that the finding returned by the respondent no.1 is perverse or against the records.
20. He further submits that the pleading of the writ petition reveals that the said finding has not been challenged by the petitioner and, accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed by this Court.
21. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
22. The petitioner claims to have been appointed in the year 1995 and his appointment was approved by the order of the DIOS on 09.03.1995. Pursuant to the approval order, the petitioner joined on 11.03.1995.
23. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the letter of sanction 19.02.1991 is a forged document as the signature on the said letter of Sri Heera Singh, the then Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), does not match with his signature in other records of the department. The original record relating to approval to the appointment of the petitioner was also not produced by the petitioner. In fact, in reply to a query at Sl. No.4 in the table regarding the answer of question put to the petitioner, the petitioner admits that the original records are not available on account of the death of the Ex-Manage, even the petitioner admits that he does not possess the original appointment letter.
24. The finding recorded by the respondent no.1 that the letter dated 19.02.1991 sanctioning the posts, on which the claim of the petitioner is based, is a forged document. The petitioner has not produced on record any material to demonstrate that the finding of the respondent no.1 in respect of letter dated 19.02.1991 is perverse and against the record.
25. It is very strange that the petitioner did not have the original appointment letter and original letter of approval issued by the DIOS on 09.03.1995, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
26. Since, the finding recorded by the respondent no.1 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is a finding of fact, therefore, in absence of any material on record to prove that the said finding is illegal and against the record, and further the petitioner did not produce even his appointment letter and letter of approval dated 09.03.1995 before the respondent no.1 to substantiate his claim, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed on the sanctioned posts in accordance with law and is entitled to the salary.
27. For the reasons stated above, writ petition lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :-24.08.2021 NS