Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6994 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Sudha Rani Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
On consent of the parties, writ petition is being disposed of without calling for a counter affidavit, as per the Rules of the Court.
Petitioner claims to have retired as Head Mistress from Higher Primary School. Grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been paid her salary for the period she worked till end of the session.
Petitioner in the instant writ petition, inter alia, seeks the following relief:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.07.2017 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad i.e. respondent no.3, whereby the arrears of salary of the petitioner since month of July, 2015 to October, 2015 as well as other retiral benefits have not been paid by the respondent no.3 in pursuance of the Government Order dated 02.05.2017.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner on the ground of Writ Petition No.33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) passed by this Hon'ble Court.
It is sought to be urged that the impugned order cannot be sustained for the reason that reliance has been placed on the Govt. Order dated 02 May 2017, for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The Govt. Order was subject matter of challenge in Angad Yadav and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others (Writ - A No. 33360 of 2017). The operative portion of the order is extracted:
"Applying these principles on the facts of the present case, I find that the petitioners in terms of the change of the academic session, when admittedly their dates of superannuation fall during the academic session i.e. 01st April, 2015 to 31st March, 2016 as their dates of birth are 01.07.1953, 01.06.1953, 01.05.1953, 03.05.1953, 01.07.1953, 01.07.1953, 01.07.1953 and 15.05.1953 respectively, they were entitled for the sessional benefit and to continue upto 31st March, 2016. There was no fault on their part as they were not allowed to work after 30th June, 2015. A specific direction was issued not to allow them to continue beyond 30th June, 2015. The said direction, as mentioned above, was manifestly erroneous and contrary to the well settled practice and the relevant Rules to give the session benefit to such teachers whose date of superannuation falls during the academic session. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 08th October, 2015 rectifying the said mistake, hence the Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 that the teachers who were allowed to continue after the judgment of Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra) and the Government Order dated 08th October, 2015, will not be paid salary from 30th June, 2015 till their rejoining is arbitrary and unreasonable. When the Government itself had issued an order dated 08th October, 2015, there was no justification to issue the impugned order dated 02nd May, 2017, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra). As noted above, the Division Bench has declared the Government Order dated 15th June, 2015 illegal.
Regard may be had to the fact that on the basis of the said order, the petitioners were denied sessional benefits. Once the said order was set aside, the petitioners became entitled to continue. The respondents have also allowed the petitioners to rejoin their position.
Therefore, in the said background and on a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The petitioners are entitled for their salary from 30th June, 2015 till the date of their rejoining. Ordered accordingly.
Thus, the writ petition stands allowed."
Learned standing counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that fresh order shall be passed by the third respondent-District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, in terms of the decision rendered in Angad Yadav (supra).
In regard thereto, writ petition, on consent, stands disposed of by passing the following order:
i) the impugned order dated 11 July 2017 passed by the third respondent- District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, is set aside and quashed;
ii) the third respondent-District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, in terms of the decision rendered in Angad Yadav (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that the Court has not considered the claim and contention of the petitioner on merits, and all issues are left open to be examined, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Anil