Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45323 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ram Khelawan Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Singh Kaosik,R. C. Dwivedi,Saroj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Sinha
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to release arrears of salary to petitioner since February, 2004 to 30.6.2011.
It is alleged that petitioner attained the age of superannuation in the year 2011. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as C.T. Grade teacher in Sri Yadvesh Inter College, Naupedwa, Jaunpur in the year 1987 and his services were regularized under section 33-A(1) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 on 7.1.1997. Grievance of the petitioner is that without passing any order or justification the petitioner's salary has been stopped.
The petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel, as well as Sri A. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the Committee of Management.
Facts do not appear to be as simple as is sought to be made out by the petitioner. It appears that petitioner has been beneficiary of fraudulent exercise and his salary has been stopped pursuant to intervention made by this Court.
In order to appreciate the controversy it would be appropriate to refer to an order passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petition with leading Writ Petition No.8641 of 2003, which came to be decided finally on 1.3.2004. Issues of concern noticed therein are extremely relevant for adjudicating this dispute, and therefore the order is reproduced in its entirety hereinafter:-
"Heard Sri P. N. Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R. M. Vishwakarma for petitioner in all the three writ petitions.
These matters has arisen out of a complaint made by one Sri Budhi Ram Yadav, who claimed to be erstwhile Manager of the institution. He brought to the notice of the authorities that as against 33 sanction posts, 46 teachers/employees are working and are being paid salary in Yadvesh Inter College, Nauperva, Jaunpur. On these allegations an enquiry was initiated and the payment of salary to petitioners Arvind Kumar Yadav as well as Indra Bhan Yadav and four peons Udai Raj Yadav, Sri Mangla Prasad Yadav, Daya Ram Yadav, Devi Prasad was stopped on 2.3.2003. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order by which their salary were stopped.
A number of arguments have been raised against the impugned orders and that Sri P.N. Saxena has made a valiant effort to justify their appointments. he submits that an enquiry was made by Regional Committee in which their appointments were found to be valide.
A counter affidavit of Sri Ram Prakash, Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik-3) U.P. Allahabad has been filed annexing a copy of enquiry report dated 8.8.2003. After a detailed enquiry in which he look into consideration the sanctioned strength as well as the validity of the appointments, he has found as against 33 sanctioned post of teachers/employees, 53 persons are actually working and that the Management has played fraud with the department. The management went on manufacturing documents and filing writ petitions after writ petition before the the High Court in which the salary has been permitted to be paid to 20 persons over and above the sanctioned strength. he has submitted a report on 11.9.2003 to the Additional Director of Education, which has been forwarded to the State Government to take immediate appropriate action and to lodge first information report against all the persons who are responsible for such activities.
It is a matter of serious concern that the Management of the recognized and aided schools in the State of U.P. in connivance wit the educational authorities are playing fraud with the entire system. The same persons thereafter seek the help of the Court and by placing incomplete and incorrect facts, obtain interim orders. Such frauds must be immediately stopped. In the present case, the Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik-3) has submitted a report which has been forwarded to the State Government. The State Government is directed to conclude the matter within one month from the production of a certified copy of this order before the Secretary of Education (Madhyamik), Government of U.P. In case the State Government finds the report to be correct, immediate disciplinary action may be taken against the concerned authorities and the salary of all those teacher and employees beyond the sanction strength must be stopped. Their appointments must be cancelled. If the report is accepted, the grant-in-aid must be stopped to the college.
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations."
It is pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by this Court that the Secretary, Department of Secondary education, U.P. Lucknow passed an order dated 15.11.2004. The State Government vide said order no.1436/15-9-2004 2001(65)/94 held that the Committee of Management had made large scale appointments in excess of sanctioned strength and that appointment of 27 teachers were not backed by any sanctioned post. In the list of excess teachers the name of petitioner figures at serial no.1. This order has not been challenged. Petitioner has claimed protection of an order passed on 9.3.2005 in Writ Petition No.29721 of 2005 wherein a different order of same date whereby proceedings under section 16-D(3) and 16-D(4) of the Act of 1921 were quashed. Though petitioner has relied upon the order dated 9.3.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.29721 of 2005, yet it is not disputed that this writ petition was directed against a different order of the same date.
The order of the State Government pursuant to direction of this Court holding the petitioner's appointment to be in excess of sanctioned strength is not under challenge. Petitioner at no point of time raised any grievance against it and it is after 11 years that he has again approached this Court for a direction upon the authorities to release his salary.
In view of the specific order passed by the State Government holding petitioner's appointment to be in excess of sanctioned strength and without there being any challenge to it, no direction can be issued to release petitioner's salary.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Ashok Kr.