Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8663 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shobha Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avinash Chandra Srivastava,Ram Bilas Yadav
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondents no.1 and 2, Sri R.B.Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and Sri A.C.Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.4 and 5.
The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has assailed the order dated 13.8.2018 passed by the District Magistrate/Chairman, Zila Lok Shiksha Samiti, District Agra-respondent no.2 whereby her claim for honorarium for the period September, 2011 to December, 2014 as Prerak (Motivator) has been rejected.
The petitioner claims that she has been appointed as Prarak vide order of Sachiv, Gram Panchayat, Lok Shiksha Samiti dated 1.9.2011. Thereafter, she has worked as such from September, 2011 to December, 2014 but her claim for honorarium has not been considered.
It appears that earlier the petitioner preferred a writ petition being Writ A No. 8486 of 2018 wherein this Court directed the District Magistrate to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law.
Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the District Magistrate vide order dated 13.8.2018 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not worked from September, 2011 to December, 2014. The said finding has been recorded by the District Magistrate on the basis of the report sought by him from the District Basic Education Officer/Secretary, Zila Lok Shiksha Samiti, District Agra. The report dated 26.6.2015 of the District Basic Education Officer states that the petitioner has not worked as Prerak, therefore, no honorarium can be paid to her.
The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing Writ A No.26455 of 2018, which was dismissed by this Court with the following order:
"The writ petition lacks sufficient material to enable the Court to form a prima facie opinion with regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner.
At this stage, the petitioner states that the writ petition may be permitted to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty."
After more than four years from filing of the earlier petition, the petitioner approached this Court praying for quashing the order dated 13.8.2018 passed by the District Magistrate.
Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is apparent from the certificate issued by the Ex-Gram Pradhan dated 15.10.2018 and also the affidavit of the students that the petitioner taught them and the petitioner has worked as Prerak and, therefore, the finding of the District Magistrate is incorrect and against the record.
Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the certificate issued by the Ex-Gram Pradhan (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and the affidavits of the students (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) are subsequent to the date of the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 13.8.2018 and those materials were not placed before the District Magistrate and as such, there is no illegality in the order passed by the District Magistrate. He further submits that the certificate said to have been issued by the Ex-Gram Pradhan as well as the affidavits of the students are genuine documents or not requires verification and, therefore, at this stage these certificates can not be relied upon. He submits that earlier also the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ A No.26455 of 2018, which was dismissed by this Court on the finding that the necessary materials are lacking.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The District Magistrate while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has sought report from the District Basic Education Officer/Secretary, Zila Lok Shiksha Samiti, District Agra-respondent no.3 as regards the working of the petitioner as Prerak. On the report submitted by the respondent no.3, the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not worked from September, 2011 to December, 2014. As is evident from the facts stated in the writ petition, the petitioner did not file any certificate or produce any material before the District Magistrate to demonstrate that she has worked as Prerak.Therefore, the order of the District Magistrate cannot be said to be illegal and contrary to the record as the petitioner did not file the certificate issued by the Ex-gram Pradhan and the affidavit of the students.
It is worth mentioning that if the petitioner had obtained the certificate of Ex-gram Pradhan and affidavit of students in order to fill in lacuna in her case, this Court cannot place reliance on the said certificate of Ex-gram Pradhan as well as the affidavit of the students, in the absence of any verification report verifying the authenticity of the certificate of Ex-gram Pradhan as well as the affidavit of the students.
It is evident from the pleading in para-22 of the writ petition that the certificate of Ex-gram Pradhan as well as the affidavit of the students were not filed with the earlier writ petition being Writ A No.26455 of 2018.
Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 SKM