1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey and Sri Badri Prasad Awasthi learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.1 to 4. The notices to the opposite party no.5 stand dispensed with.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 01.02.2016 whereby salary payment to the petitioners holding the post of Assistant Teachers and Lecturers in the Acharya J. B. Kriplani Inter College, District Ballia has been refused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the matter pertaining to payment of salary of the petitioners was adjudicated by this Court vide judgment and order dated 26.05.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 15897 of 1997 whereunder the District Inspector of Schools had been directed to take a final decision with regard to payment of salary of the petitioners after giving them opportunity of hearing. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 03.11.2007 had granted financial sanction for payment of salary to the petitioners whereafter the payment of salary continued to the petitioners. Subsequently due to filing of Writ A No. 26307 of 2010 (Dhruv Narayan Singh vs. State of U.P. & others), the salary payment was stopped. In pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 18.05.2015 a Committee had been constituted under the Chairmanship of Additional Director Education (Secondary). It had been directed that public notice would be issued by the Additional Director within ten days after receiving the records from the State Government inviting objections to be filed within two weeks from the date of publication of notice. The Committee was to submit its report to the Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow within three months and a decision was to be taken by the Secretary on the basis of material on record without any requirement of personal hearing to the institution.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of the said directions, the Committee had submitted its recommendations with regard to the petitioners which have been indicated in the impugned order itself.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the recommendations of the Committee clearly indicate the fact that the appointment of the petitioners against their posts was in accordance with the service rules. The Committee has further indicated the fact that earlier the matters pertaining to the petitioners were under investigation by the C.B.C.I.D. but the said proceedings were dropped against the petitioners and as such the petitioners are not under any such investigation. In view thereof, the Committee had made a recommendation for payment of salary to the petitioners. However in the impugned order, the payment of salary to the petitioners has been denied on the ground of petitioners being under investigation by the C.B.C.I.D.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind and against the recommendations of the Committee as also on a misappreciation of the facts and therefore is liable to be quashed.
7. The learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has submitted that the salary payment to the petitioners has been denied not only on the ground that the petitioners were under investigation of the C.B.C.I.D. but also on the ground that adequate vacant posts are not available in the institution in question as would be evident from Paragraph No. 6.1 of the impugned order itself.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the records.
9. A perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates the fact that salary payment to the petitioners has been denied only on the ground that they were under investigation by the C.B.C.I.D. and not on the ground of inadequate posts in the institution in question. Apparently, the impugned order has been passed completely ignoring or on misappreciation of the report of the Committee which clearly states that the petitioners are no longer under investigation by the C.B.C.I.D.
10. In view of the fact that the irregularity in the impugned order is self-evident, a writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued at the admission stage itself quashing the order dated 01.02.2016 while granting liberty to the opposite party no.1, i.e. the Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P., Lucknow to revisit the matter pertaining to grant of salary to the petitioners in the light of the recommendations of the Committee constituted under the directions of this Court, within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him.
11. In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Ashok Gupta