Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Syed Hasan Imam Naqvi vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|07 January, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Reserved On: 15.12.2020
Delivered On: 07. 01.2021
Court No. - 75
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11899 of 2020
Petitioner :- Syed Hasan Imam Naqvi Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Daya Ram
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 5.
2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seek sessional benefit. The claim that they were entitled to work till the end of academic session i.e. 31.3.2016. They have prayed for the following reliefs:
"I. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Amroha (Respondent No.4) to extend the benefit of Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others) in favour of the petitioner.
II. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Amroha (Respondent No. 4) to take immediate steps for releasing arrears of salary in favour of petitioner for the period 1st July, 2015 up till 16.12.2015 within a specific period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.
III. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Amroha (Respondent No. 4) to grant the benefit of annual increment due in July, 2015; benefit of 7th Pay Commission due in January, 2016 and Bonus for the year 2015- 16 in favour of petitioner within a specific period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.
IV. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikar, District Amroha (Respondent No.4) to take immediate steps to consider and decide the representation dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition) within a specific period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.
V. Issue any other and further suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
VI. Award cost of the Writ Petition."
3. The petitioner was made to retire on 30.06.2015 from the post of Head Master of Junior Basic Schools.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the controversy involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in Writ-A No. 33360/2017; Angad Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P. and others against which Special Appeal No.505/2018; Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and others Vs. Angad Yadav and others was preferred, which was also decided on 11.12.2018, whereby the special appeal was dismissed and therefore prayed for the similar relief.
5. This Court on 19th August, 2017 in an identical writ petition, being Writ-A No. 33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others), which was filed by the similarly placed persons, has passed a detailed judgment and order allowing the writ petition. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:
"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."
6. I have heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5. They agree that the facts of the present petition are identical to that of Angad Yadav (supra) and this writ petition may also be decided in the same terms.
7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms as in Angad Yadav (supra).
Order Date :- 07.01.2021 SY
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Syed Hasan Imam Naqvi vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
07 January, 2021
Judges
  • Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Advocates
  • Anurag Shukla